09 Jul 2026
Explore how evolving market structure is changing drawdown risk and why recognising the type of drawdown matters.
The idea that investors can consistently position portfolios correctly ahead of drawdowns is deeply ingrained—but ultimately unrealistic. While it is possible to identify conditions that make markets more vulnerable—such as stretched valuations, crowded positioning, or fragile liquidity—these signals do not provide clarity on the timing or catalyst of a drawdown.
Predicting what will trigger a market correction, and when it will occur, remains inherently difficult. Even when risks are correctly identified, waiting for a catalyst can itself become costly, as markets can remain resilient for extended periods. This creates a structural challenge: positioning too early can erode returns, while positioning too late offers limited risk mitigation or is significantly more expensive.
Perhaps most importantly, anticipating a risk does not guarantee an accurate understanding of how markets will respond. Developments in 2022 provide a useful example. Inflation risks were widely recognized, yet the magnitude, speed, and persistence of the rate adjustment caught many investors off guard. Markets repriced aggressively, with policy rates rising sharply and bond yields moving significantly higher. Even portfolios aligned with the broad macro narrative experienced material losses, as positioning failed to fully reflect the scale and transmission of the shock.
The key takeaway is that the challenge is not simply identifying risks—it is translating those risks into effective positioning under uncertainty.
In response to the difficulty of timing drawdowns, some investors adopt a strategy of maintaining continuous hedging positions. While this may provide a degree of comfort, it comes at a measurable and often underappreciated cost.
Delta-one hedging strategies, such as maintaining short credit exposure through indices, introduce a persistent drag on portfolio carry. In stable or risk-positive environments, this could meaningfully reduce income and lead to consistent underperformance. Over time, these small but continuous costs compound, eroding long-term returns.
Options-based approaches offers a different profile, providing convexity in periods of stress. However, this comes with a higher explicit cost, as option premiums decay over time. While certain structures—such as spreads or collars—can reduce upfront costs, they do so by limiting the scope or timing of that downside benefit. In practice, there is no costless hedge: reducing premium outlay typically means sacrificing coverage in specific scenarios or accepting narrower payoff profiles.
The implication is not that hedging lacks value. Rather, its effectiveness is highly context-dependent, and maintaining it continuously is inefficient. These types of strategies can be valuable in periods of acute stress, but persistently paying for it can materially detract from long-term outcomes.
A more effective approach begins with recognizing that drawdowns differ in their underlying drivers and market dynamics.
At the highest level, drawdowns can be divided into fundamental and technical events. Fundamental drawdowns are typically driven by changes in economic conditions and are often accompanied by, among other macroeconomic factors, a deterioration in earnings expectations over the subsequent 6–12 months. Technical drawdowns, by contrast, are driven by flows, positioning, and liquidity dynamics, with little or no change in underlying fundamentals.
A further distinction can be made based on the speed and severity of the drawdown. Rapid drawdowns are characterized by sharp declines—typically exceeding 7–8% and reaching a bottom within a relatively short time frame—while slower drawdowns unfold more gradually and over longer periods.
Source: Bloomberg Index Services Limited. Data as of 30 April 2026. Analysis by T. Rowe Price
Applying this framework to recent history provides useful insight. The inflation shock of 2022 represents a fundamental, slow-moving drawdown, driven by persistent macro repricing. The COVID-19 crisis was a fundamental but sharp drawdown, marked by a rapid deterioration in economic activity and a sharp repricing of risk. By contrast, the dislocation in August 2024, sparked by a Bank of Japan interest rate hike which shook carry trades linked to the low yielding Japanese yen, is best understood as a technical and rapid drawdown, driven by positioning and liquidity rather than changes in fundamentals.
The differences between these drawdowns are most evident in how markets behave during and after the event.
In 2022, losses accumulated gradually and recovery has been prolonged, reflecting persistent macro uncertainty and the drawdown’s less abrupt nature. During COVID-19, the sharp drawdown saw markets reprice rapidly but recover within months as policy support restored confidence. In August 2024, the dislocation was brief but severe, with spreads widening quickly before normalizing just as fast.
These patterns highlight a key asymmetry: technical drawdowns have tended to reverse quickly, while fundamental ones persisted. This distinction has direct implications for how investors should respond. It is also important to understand the ability and resolve of policy makers to respond in a fundamental drawdown. Very simply, policymakers can be quicker to spend than enact austerity measures.
The increased frequency of technical drawdowns over the past decade reflects structural changes in market dynamics rather than larger underlying shocks. A greater share of trading is now driven by systematic strategies and passive vehicles, which react mechanically to price and volatility, creating self-reinforcing moves.
At the same time, reduced dealer balance sheets have diminished the market’s ability to absorb flows, while liquidity—particularly in fixed income—has become more fragile.
The growth of leverage and faster, algorithm-driven execution as well as greater homogeneity of investors further amplify these effects, compressing market adjustments into shorter, more severe episodes. As a result, markets have become more efficient in stable conditions but less resilient in periods of stress, increasing the likelihood of sharp, flow-driven dislocations.
Distinguishing between drawdown types in real time is challenging but essential. The key is to assess whether market moves are being driven by changes in economic fundamentals or by flows and positioning.
We frame this through the “4Ps” diagnostic framework:
Key Framework for understanding market drawdowns
Source: T. Rowe Price. For illustrative purposes only
In 2022, the signal was consistent and cumulative—rising inflation, tightening policy, weakening fundamentals and a clear repricing of rates. During COVID-19, the collapse in economic activity and earnings expectations provided a clear fundamental catalyst. In contrast, the August 2024 dislocation was characterized by rapid price moves, limited macro deterioration, and clear signs of liquidity stress and forced selling.
The guiding question remains simple: Is this a change in fundamentals, or a market dislocation?
Once the nature of the drawdown is understood, the effectiveness of the response becomes the primary driver of outcomes.
A common mistake in volatile markets is to chase downside risk mitigation after the initial move has occurred. In highly illiquid conditions, this often results in paying elevated prices for hedges that deliver limited benefit, particularly if the market stabilizes quickly. In many cases, this can lead to both higher costs and weaker overall outcomes.
The effectiveness of hedging varies significantly across different environments, particularly in fast-moving markets.
In highly volatile and technically driven market environments, the timing of hedging becomes critically important. Without near-perfect execution, the cost of downside mitigation can outweigh its benefits—particularly in scenarios where markets recover rapidly or where drawdowns remain relatively shallow.
The recent Iranian conflict provides a useful illustration. For example, comparing the performance of the S&P 500 Index with the CBOE S&P 500 5% Put Protection Index shows that, during this specific period of elevated volatility, the S&P 500 Index outperformed. In this case, the cost of maintaining the options-based hedge exceeded the downside risk mitigation provided during the short-lived market dislocation.
Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.
This is an illustrative, index-based comparison and does not represent actual portfolio performance or the experience of any investor.Source: Bloomberg Index Services Limited. Data as of 30/04/2026, Analysis by T. Rowe Price.
In fundamental drawdowns, where either the magnitude of the decline or the time taken to reach the trough becomes more significant,hedging can become more effective. During COVID-19, the severity of the drawdown made hedging particularly effective, while in2022, hedging over specific periods would also have been additive, as illustrated below.
Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.
This is an illustrative, index-based comparison and does not represent actual portfolio performance or the experience of any investor.
Source: Bloomberg Index Services Limited. Data Comparison between 03/02/2020 to 29/06/2020, Analysis by T. Rowe Price.
Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.
This is an illustrative, index-based comparison and does not represent actual portfolio performance or the experience of any investor.
Source: Bloomberg Index Services Limited. Data comparison between 01/02/2022 to 30/12/2022, Analysis by T. Rowe Price.
While the initial shock may be unavoidable, a more effective response is often to focus on price dislocations and act as a provider of liquidity rather than a consumer of it.
In a slow, fundamental drawdown such as 2022, this involves gradual repositioning—reducing exposure to duration while rebuilding yield at higher levels. In a severe, fundamental shock like COVID-19, portfolios may benefit from a combination of defensive positioning in government bonds and opportunistic buying as spreads overshoot as well as direct hedging.
In technical dislocations, the approach differs. Because these episodes are driven by liquidity rather than fundamentals, hedging is often both expensive and ineffective. The more attractive opportunity lies in selectively deploying capital into assets that have become temporarily dislocated from their intrinsic value. This is where mandate flexibility is important and why we stress liquidity and the ability to enter markets that are out of reach for retail investors or outside of traditional institutional mandates.
Being early to these calls before it is obvious to the entire market can create value.
Source: T. Rowe Price. For illustrative purposes only
Recent market history reinforces a simple conclusion. Drawdowns are inevitable, and the ability to consistently avoid them is limited. Attempts to do so often introduce costs that erode long-term performance.
A more robust definition of market drawdowns encourages portfolio adaptability. It requires the ability to distinguish between different types of drawdowns, interpret market signals in real time, and respond with the appropriate toolkit.
The inflation shock of 2022, the COVID-19 crisis, and the technical dislocation of August 2024 each rewarded different behaviors. What they share is a common lesson: outcomes are determined not by the avoidance of drawdowns, but by the discipline and flexibility of the response.
"In fixed income, the edge is not prediction—it is disciplined adaptation."
