Fund index
BND
19 articles on this site analyse BND — 5 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-06-30BND reports 17,397 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 879.4 equally weighted ones. Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing — see what this measure does not tell you and the full table.
The same filing says what kind of price those positions carry: 0.9% of BND is held at a quoted market price, across 31 issuer countries , with 0.3% in restricted securities. Comparisons across every fund are in the valuation table, and what a low share does and does not mean is worth reading before drawing a conclusion from it.
Every filing since 2019
28Between 2019-09-30 and 2026-06-30, BND went from behaving like 644.7 equally weighted positions to 879.4 — 36% more, while its top ten went from 5.82% to 4.62% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-30 | 17,397 | 879.4 | 4.62% | 0.9% |
| 2026-03-31 | 17,361 | 857.7 | 4.82% | 1.07% |
| 2025-12-31 | 17,486 | 843.1 | 4.84% | 1.14% |
| 2025-09-30 | 17,730 | 880.2 | 4.65% | 0.91% |
| 2025-06-30 | 17,689 | 889.5 | 4.55% | 0.8% |
| 2025-03-31 | 17,794 | 919.7 | 4.41% | 0.57% |
| 2024-12-31 | 17,881 | 867.8 | 4.85% | 0.81% |
| 2024-09-30 | 17,875 | 890.3 | 4.74% | 0.98% |
| 2024-06-30 | 17,780 | 932.2 | 4.38% | 0.57% |
| 2024-03-31 | 17,812 | 944 | 4.4% | 0.53% |
| 2023-12-31 | 17,881 | 941.9 | 4.47% | 0.57% |
| 2023-09-30 | 17,923 | 912.8 | 4.54% | 0.54% |
| 2023-06-30 | 17,895 | 879.3 | 4.93% | 0.69% |
| 2023-03-31 | 17,693 | 860.7 | 4.99% | 0.6% |
| 2022-12-31 | 17,352 | 876.3 | 4.78% | 0.62% |
| 2022-09-30 | 17,286 | 855.5 | 4.84% | 0.63% |
| 2022-06-30 | 17,249 | 849.7 | 4.86% | 0.63% |
| 2022-03-31 | 17,237 | 770.8 | 5.87% | 1.09% |
| 2021-12-31 | 18,586 | 671.8 | 6.32% | 1.82% |
| 2021-09-30 | 18,705 | 661.3 | 6.32% | 1.94% |
| 2021-06-30 | 18,652 | 579.1 | 6.7% | 2.49% |
| 2021-03-31 | 18,638 | 513.9 | 7.26% | 2.91% |
| 2020-12-31 | 18,463 | 490.5 | 7.25% | 3.07% |
| 2020-09-30 | 18,384 | 473.2 | 7.42% | 3.22% |
| 2020-06-30 | 18,200 | 427.3 | 7.45% | 3.6% |
| 2020-03-31 | 17,796 | 768.3 | 5.09% | 1.19% |
| 2019-12-31 | 17,620 | 808.6 | 5.03% | 1.4% |
| 2019-09-30 | 17,480 | 644.7 | 5.82% | 2.22% |
One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.
Most often compared against
4Measures applied to it
8All articles
19-
Duration and Convexity: What Bond-ETF Investors Get Wrong About Rate Sensitivity
Duration, not credit, is the dominant risk in high-quality bond ETFs — and TLT carries roughly three times BND's. Convexity is real but it is a second-order...
-
Monte Carlo vs the 4% Rule: Simulating Retirement Withdrawals Instead of Assuming Them
The 4% rule is a single conclusion drawn from one country's worst historical sequence; Monte Carlo is a method that asks how often a plan survives across...
-
The Diversification Return: Why Rebalancing Can Add Yield Even When Nothing Outperforms
A rebalanced portfolio can earn a higher compound (geometric) return than the weighted average of its parts — even if no single holding beats the others....
-
Target-Date Funds vs a DIY Three-Fund Portfolio: What the Convenience Actually Costs
The headline fee gap between a Vanguard target-date fund and a self-built three-fund portfolio is roughly 0.04% a year — real, but far smaller than most...
-
BNDX vs BND: Does Adding International Bonds Do Anything for a US Portfolio?
BNDX (international bonds) and BND (US bonds) have delivered nearly identical 10-year CAGRs — 1.5% and 1.4% respectively — which is not a coincidence,...
-
MUB vs BND: When Municipal Bonds Beat Taxable Bonds — The Tax-Equivalent Yield Math
On stated yield, BND (3.95%) pays more than MUB (3.16%) — but MUB's income is exempt from federal tax, so the honest comparison is the tax-equivalent yield,...
-
How to Rebalance Into a Drawdown Without Guessing the Bottom
Rebalancing bands turn a drawdown into a mechanical instruction — trim what held, add to what fell — without requiring you to identify the bottom. Over the...
-
LQD vs HYG: Investment-Grade vs High-Yield Credit — What the Spread Actually Pays You For
The credit spread pays you for default risk — but over the last five years, the fund that lost more was the investment-grade one, not the high-yield one....
-
TIP vs SCHP vs VTIP: How Inflation-Protected Bond ETFs Differ by Duration
TIP and SCHP hold the full-maturity TIPS ladder and behave almost identically; the only durable difference between them is a 0.15% fee gap that favors SCHP....
-
TLT vs IEF vs SHY: Building a Treasury Duration Ladder for Different Rate Scenarios
TLT, IEF, and SHY charge the same 0.15% expense ratio, so this decision is not about cost — it is entirely about how much interest-rate duration you want to...
-
A 2026 Rate-Cut Path: Bonds vs Cash When Yields Fall (SGOV vs BND)
The last five years rewarded cash (SGOV) and punished duration (BND) — but that record was set during a rate-hiking regime, and it is the wrong template for...
-
BND vs AGG: The Two Total-Bond Giants — Duration, Yield, and Tracking Difference
BND and AGG charge the identical 0.03% expense ratio, yield within two basis points of each other, and posted max drawdowns within 0.1 percentage points...
-
The Three-Fund Portfolio in 2026: What VTI, VXUS, and BND Actually Delivered
Over the trailing five years, VTI did the heavy lifting (12.3% CAGR), VXUS lagged (7.9%), and BND delivered almost nothing (0.1%) — yet that spread is the...
-
The Mulden Hybrid Portfolio Framework: Quarterly Review (Q2 2026)
Across the 5-year window ending Q2 2026, the framework's diversifiers (gold) and growth tilt (QQQM) carried the return, while the bond sleeve (BND)...
-
Why Sequence-of-Returns Risk Is the Hidden Killer Before Retirement
Sequence-of-returns risk is not about the average return over 30 years — it is about which years the bad ones land in relative to when withdrawals begin....
-
Why Most Investors Get Rebalancing Bands Wrong (Daryanani 2008 Revisited)
Daryanani's 2008 paper is widely cited and widely misread. The actual finding was not "5/25" — it was that relative drift bands of roughly 20% of the target...
-
What +/-15 vs +/-25 Rebalancing Bands Actually Do — A 15-Year 60/40 Backtest
Over 15.7 years on a 60/40 VOO/BND portfolio, annual rebalancing produced 9.99% CAGR; ±15% drift bands produced 10.23%; ±25% bands produced 10.59%. The...
-
Gold vs Bonds in 2026: Two Different Hedges, Two Different Risks
Gold and bonds get grouped as "safe havens", but they hedge different risks — real rates and fiat credibility for gold; nominal yields and growth...
-
SGOV and Gold in a 4.5% World: Rethinking the Defensive Sleeve for 2026
With SGOV's distribution yield at 3.9% and the 10-year Treasury at 4.47% (FRED, asof 2026-05-14), the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold is...
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.