[jterenzio]

I am not sure if that's true for non-fixed-maturity funds because the fund manager will keep the ladder rolling after 5-7 years, ie. the fund won't just pay out at maturity - they will keep reinvesting further and further into the future.

There are some bond funds called fixed-maturity funds that actually mature on a date and pay back the principal. Ie. they let all the bonds inside mature without reinvesting them. iShares iBonds are an example. But this is not the norm for bond funds.

[meritt]

I think you should read https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ICRIBI.pdf

You generally seem to be conflating face (static) value with market (dynamic) value. You're not wrong but your article makes a number of statements implying a ladder is better/safer simply because you refuse to recognize that the current value will deviate from par.

[jterenzio]

Cool. I will read that. I'm trying to address the practical case of buying something, earning interest, then selling it and/or having it mature, not holding into perpetuity. Maybe I can be more clear about this in the post so after I read this I can make an update. Thanks for linking!

I added: Some readers have pointed out that over the long term there isn't a difference between building a ladder and using a similar bond fund. This strategy assumes that eventually you'll want to move your principle out of bonds and into something else like a down payment (while rates are still rising), but you don't have a well-defined timeline. If you are planning on keeping your principle invested in bonds into perpetuity then a bond fund might be a more suitable investment.

Thoughts?