$1,000 in AGG Could Turn Into $4,200
The bond ETF has a lower risk and lower return profile.
It can help investors diversify their portfolios and reduce risk.
10 stocks we like better than iShares Trust - iShares Core U.s. Aggregate Bond ETF ›
The iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NYSEMKT: AGG) is one of the biggest exchange-traded funds (ETFs) focused on the bond market. AGG has over $126 billion in total assets under management (AUM). That puts it right behind the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF, which leads with over $129 billion in AUM.
Investing in bonds (either directly or indirectly through ETFs like AGG) helps investors build a more diversified portfolio and generate income, which helps lower risk. Here's a look at how much an investment of $1,000 in AGG could turn into in the future and why investors would want to consider investing in a bond ETF.
The iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF, or AGG, provides investors with broad exposure to U.S. investment-grade bonds. Investment-grade bonds are fixed-income investments with a lower risk of defaulting than non-investment-grade or junk bonds. They enable investors to lower the risk profile of their portfolio and generate investment income.
This fund currently holds over 12,600 bonds with maturities of as much as 20-plus years in the future. It has U.S. Treasury Bonds (45% of its holdings); mortgage-backed securities or MBS (24% backed by residential mortgage, and 1.5% backed by commercial mortgages); bonds issued by corporations (14% industrial, 8% financial institutions, and 2% utilities); and other bonds, including U.S. dollar bonds issued by foreign countries (1%) and municipal bonds (less than 1%). This broad exposure to the entire investment-grade bond market further reduces this ETF's risk profile.
Those who have invested for a while know that there are always trade-offs. In the case of AGG, the trade-off is that the bond ETF's very low-risk profile comes with lower return potential. For the most part, the interest income paid by its bond holdings makes up its entire return.
Since its inception in 2003, AGG has delivered an average annual return of only 3.1%. It would have grown a $1,000 investment into over $1,800 at that rate. That assumes an investor reinvested the interest income paid by the ETF into buying more shares.
However, interest rates are higher today than they've been throughout much of this ETF's history. As a result, its current bond portfolio has an average yield to maturity of almost 4.8% (just below the historical average bond return of 5% over the last century). The fund could turn a $1,000 investment into more than $4,200 in about 30 years at that higher return rate.
The caveat is that while interest rates are currently higher, they might not be as high in the future. On the other hand, interest rates could also stabilize at an even higher level, enabling investors to generate even more income from this fund.
Adding bonds to your portfolio can be a wise idea. While bonds have a lower return profile, they can also help significantly reduce the volatility of your portfolio. Here's a look at how adding a bond fund like AGG can help reduce risk without significantly sacrificing returns:
Portfolio Allocation
Best Annual Return
Worst Annual Return
Average Annual Return
100% stocks/0% bonds
54.2%
-43.1%
10.5%
80% stocks/20% bonds
45.4%
-34.9%
9.7%
60% stocks/40% bonds
36.7%
-26.6%
8.8%
50% stocks/50% bonds
32.3%
-22.5%
8.2%
40% stocks/60% bonds
27.9%
-18.4%
7.7%
20% stocks/80% bonds
29.8%
-14.4%
6.4%
0% stocks/80% bonds
32.6%
-13.1%
5%
Data source: Vanguard. NOTE: Returns data from 1926 to 2024.
As that chart shows, adding bonds to your portfolio (i.e., buying AGG) will lower your return potential. However, it will also help cushion the blow of a very bad year in the market.
Most financial advisors recommend that investors allocate a portion of their portfolio to bonds. The traditionally recommended allocation for a balanced portfolio is 60% stocks and 40% bonds. However, younger investors might want to hold a higher percentage of their portfolio in stocks, while older investors should consider a higher allocation to bonds. One good rule of thumb is that you should allocate your age to bonds (e.g., if you're 25, then you should consider having a 25% allocation to bonds).
Buying an ETF like AGG isn't about maximizing the value of your investment. Instead, you'd invest $1,000 into AGG to help lower the risk profile of your portfolio.
Investing $1,000 into AGG won't grow it into a huge future windfall like a similar investment in a stock ETF might achieve. However, it should produce steady income while helping lower the risk profile of your entire portfolio. For many investors, that would enable them to still reach their financial goals while potentially having fewer sleepless nights worrying about stock market volatility.
Before you buy stock in iShares Trust - iShares Core U.s. Aggregate Bond ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and iShares Trust - iShares Core U.s. Aggregate Bond ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $658,297!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $883,386!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 992% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join .
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
Matt DiLallo has positions in Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF and iShares Trust - iShares Core U.s. Aggregate Bond ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
$1,000 in AGG Could Turn Into $4,200 was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
U.S. sanctions 7 senior leaders at Hezbollah-linked Al-Qard Al-Hasan
Debris lies at the site of a damaged branch of Al-Qard al-Hasan, a financial institution linked to Lebanon's Hezbollah in the aftermath of Israeli airstrikes on Sunday that hit several branches of the institution, in Beirut suburbs, Lebanon, on Monday, Oct. 21, 2024. File Photo by Fadel Itani/ UPI | License Photo July 4 (UPI) -- The United States has sanctioned seven senior officials and one firm linked to Al-Qard Al-Hasan, a U.S.-designated, Hezbollah-controlled financial institution that came under attack last fall during Israel's war against the Iran-proxy militia in Lebanon. Thursday's sanctions are the latest in a series by the U.S. Treasury targeting Hezbollah and follow U.S. actions against various revenue-generating operations of the militia during Israel's war against Hamas, another Iran-backed group, in Gaza, which began in October 2023. Al-Qard Al-Hasan was blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury in July 2007, and its group of so-called shadow bankers in Lebanon was sanctioned in 2021. On Thursday, the Treasury sanctioned Nehme Ahmad Jamil, 54, and his Tashilat SARL company he co-owns with Ahmad Mohamad Yazbeck, who was among the shadow bankers designated nearly five years ago. Other senior officers at Al-Qard Al-Hasan sanctioned Thursday include Issa Hussein Kassir, 47, Samer Hasan Fawaz, 50, Imad Mohamad Bezz, 47, Ali Mohamad Karnib, 38, Ali Ahmad Krisht, 47, and Mohammed Suleiman Badir, 49. According to the U.S. Treasury, these designations aim to disrupt Hezbollah's sanctions-evasion schemes and help the Lebanese government curb the group's influence. "Through their roles at AQAH, these officials sought to obfuscate Hezbollah's interest in seemingly legitimate transactions at Lebanese financial institutions, exposing these banks to significant AML/CFT risk while allowing Hezbollah to funnel money for its own benefit," Deputy Secretary Michael Faulkender said in a statement. "As Hezbollah seeks money to rebuild its operations, Treasury remains strongly committed to dismantling the group's financial infrastructure and limiting its ability to reconstitute itself." Hezbollah became involved in the Israel-Gaza war a day after it began, launching rockets into northern Israel. In October, with much of Gaza destroyed and tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, Israel intensified its attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon, launching ground and artillery operations, seeking to eradicate the militant group in order to prevent it from further attacking Israel. Among its targets was Al-Qard Al-Hasan, with dozens of its branches destroyed in Beirut's southern suburbs and southern and eastern Lebanon.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Why Energy Fuels Stock Lit Up Today
Cantor Fitzgerald upgraded Energy Fuels stock to "buy" today. Once speculative, Cantor has reason to believe Energy Fuels stock will soon turn solidly profitable. The reason: Its Pinyon Plain mine in Arizona appears to have "one of the highest-grade uranium deposits mined in U.S. history." 10 stocks we like better than Energy Fuels › Energy Fuels (NYSEMKT: UUUU) stock surged 10.5% through 2:30 p.m. ET Wednesday after investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald upgraded the uranium mining stock from "speculative buy" to just plain "buy." The banker also gave the shares a price target of $7.17, says If correct, this implies Energy Fuels stock could gain another 13% over the next 12 months. Cantor based its upgrade on a press release from Energy Fuels yesterday morning in which the company stated it mined 638,700 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8) from its Pinyon Plain mine in Arizona in the second quarter of 2025, "cementing its place as one of the top new uranium mines in the world." Even better, more than 36% of this production happened in June (so production rates are increasing). The purity of the uranium mined averaged 3.51% in June -- 57% better than for the quarter as a whole (so the mining operation is getting more efficient). Company CEO Mark Chalmers says Pinyon is turning into "one of the highest-grade uranium deposits mined in U.S. history," which should result in lower unit production costs and higher profits for Energy Fuels. That would be a nice change because most years, Energy Fuels actually loses money. Trailing-12-month results for the stock actually show a $78 million loss and more than $102 million in negative free cash flow. The good news is that Energy Fuels is getting good rates for its production of uranium at $77 per pound in Q2, and analysts polled by S&P Global Market Intelligence expect to see positive profits as early as 2026 and growing profits thereafter. Priced at an unchallenging 25x next year's expected profit of $0.25 per share, Energy Fuels stock could be a winner. Before you buy stock in Energy Fuels, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Fuels wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $697,627!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $939,655!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,045% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Energy Fuels Stock Lit Up Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Time Magazine
2 days ago
- Time Magazine
What the Budget Bill Means for Our National Debt
Now that the budget bill has passed Congress, we can see clear projections for how it will impact deficits, government debt, and debt service expenses. In brief, the bill is expected to lead to spending of about $7 trillion a year with inflows of about $5 trillion a year. So the national debt, which is now about 6x of the money taken in, 100% of GDP, and about $230,000 per American family, will rise over ten years to about 7.5x the money taken in, 130% of GDP, and $425,000 per family. That will increase interest and principal payments on the debt from about $10 trillion ($1 trillion in interest, $9 trillion in principal) to about $18 trillion (of which $2 trillion is interest payments). This will lead to either a big squeezing out (and cutting off) of spending and/or unimaginable tax increases or a lot of printing and devaluing of money and pushing interest rates to unattractively low levels. This printing and devaluing is not good for those holding bonds as a storehold of wealth, and what's bad for bonds and U.S. credit markets is bad for everyone because the U.S. Treasury markets are the backbone of all capital markets—which are the backbones of our economic and social conditions. Unless this path is soon rectified to bring the budget deficit from roughly 7% of GDP to about 3% by making adjustments to spending, taxes, and interest rates, big, painful disruptions will likely occur. To explain why I believe this, I should describe where I'm coming from. Over my 50 years of experience as a global macro investor, I have developed and written down principles to help me anticipate events so that I can successfully bet on them. These principles are based on an understanding of the mechanics that drive changes in economies and markets. The most important principles for understanding big deficits and government debts like the ones the U.S. (and many other developed nations) are experiencing today are: In summary, when there is too much debt, interest and currency rates tend to be driven down. Is that good or bad for economic conditions? The answer: It's both. It depends on one's position. Lowering real interest rates and real currency exchange rates is beneficial over the short term because it is stimulative and tends to lift asset prices while it is detrimental over the intermediate and long term. This is because it gives holders of these assets lower real returns (because of the currency devaluation and the lower yield. And also because it produces higher inflation rates and leads to greater debt. In any case, it certainly doesn't avoid the painful consequences of overspending and getting deeper into debt. When interest rates fall, borrower-debtors benefit because debt service costs are reduced, making it cheaper to borrow and buy things, which raises investment asset prices and stimulates growth. That's why, over the short term, most everyone is happy with lower interest rates. But at the same time, lowering interest rates to undesirably low levels is detrimental to lenders and creditors. Reducing interest rates (most importantly real interest rates), including central banks pushing bond yields down, raises the prices of bonds and most other assets, which leads to lower future returns. For example, when interest rates went to negative levels, bond prices went up. It also leads to more debt, which creates bigger debt problems down the road. So, lender-creditors get less return on their debt assets, and more debt is created. Lower real interest rates also tend to lower the real value of the currency because it lowers the currency/credit yield relative to other countries' alternatives. Still, lowering currency rates is the preferred and most common way for government policy makers to deal with too much debt for two reasons. First, lower currency exchange rates make countries' goods and services less expensive relative to those from countries that have rising currencies, so they stimulate economic activity and raise asset prices (particularly in nominal terms). And second, they make it easier to pay off debt in a way that is more painful for foreigners holding the debt assets than for the countries' own citizens. That is because the alternative way of handling debt problems requires tighter money and credit, which keeps real interest rates higher, constricting spending and typically leading to painful service cuts and/or tax increases and tougher lending conditions that citizens don't like. In contrast, as I will explain below, lower currency rates are a 'hidden' way of paying debts because most people don't realize that their wealth is decreasing. A lower currency rate also typically raises the price of foreign assets when measured in the depreciated currency. For example, if the dollar devalues by 20% percent, foreign holders of dollar-denominated debt will be repaid with money that is worth 20% less (i.e., they will have currency losses of 20%). What is harmful but less apparent is that those with the weaker currency have less buying and borrowing power—less buying power because their currency goes less far and less borrowing power because buyers don't want debt assets (i.e., promises to receive money) when they believe the value of the money the debt is denominated in is going down. The reason most people in the country whose currency is being devalued (e.g., Americans dealing in dollars) don't see their buying power and wealth decline is because they measure the value of their assets in their own currency, which gives the illusion that their assets are going up even though what's actually happening is that the currency is going down. For example, if the dollar falls by 20%, U.S. investors won't directly see that they lost 20% in their buying power of foreign goods and services if they focus only on the fact that the US assets they own have gone up in dollars. The fact that most people have this distorted perspective is what makes these ways of dealing with having too much debt 'hidden' and more politically acceptable than the alternatives. However, for foreign holders of U.S. dollar-denominated debt, it will be obvious and painful, and they will increasingly hedge (sell) the currency that the debt is in and/or sell out of the debts, leading to more weakness in the currency and/or the debt. What does all this mean for the economy and politics? History shows that big debts that can't be supported with hard money lead to big easings of money and credit, which lead to big declines in both real interest rates and the real currency rates. The most recent time this happened was the stagflationary period from 1971 until 1981, and it caused big shifts in wealth, financial markets, economies, and political circumstances. Based on the existing sizes of debts and deficits (not only in the U.S., but also in most fiat-currency countries), the potential for similar very big shifts exists in the years ahead. It's also worth noting that the way people look at the value of money has changed a lot over the years. When money existed as paper notes that were claims on gold (let's call this gold-backed money, which was the case before Nixon de-linked the dollar from gold in 1971), people viewed the value of paper money as rising and falling. Its value almost always fell, and the only question was whether it fell faster than the interest rates one received when holding currency in a debt instrument. Now that the world has gotten used to viewing prices through the lens of fiat/paper money (which is what we've had since 1971), people have the reverse view—they view the prices of things as going up, not the value of money going down. Because prices of things in gold-backed money and the quantity of gold-backed money have historically been more stable than prices of things in fiat/paper money and the quantity of fiat/paper money, I believe that it's more accurate to view prices in gold-backed money. Apparently, central banks have a similar perspective because gold has become the second largest reserve asset they own after dollars and ahead of euros and yen, partly for these reasons and partly because gold is at less risk of being confiscated. At times when debt and budget issues are very large, it's good to have hard money, which for many centuries across the world, has been gold. Much more recently, some cryptocurrencies have been viewed as hard currencies. So how much hard money/gold should one have? While I'm not trying to give you advice on specific investments, when thinking about what amount of gold relative to bonds I want to have, I think of their relative supplies and demands and the relative costs and returns of holding them. I also know that gold and bonds diversify each other, so I think about how much of each I should have for good risk control, and I know that a gold holding of roughly 15% can be an effective diversifier in that it produces a better return/risk ratio for the portfolio. Inflation-linked bonds do the same, so it is worth considering adding both to a typical portfolio. I am sharing this perspective with you rather than telling you what I think the markets will do or suggesting exactly how much of each asset you should have because my goal is to 'teach you how to fish rather than give you fish.'
