[jterenzio]

In theory that's true if you hold the fund forever but take the example of VGSH from another comment thread. If you bought that fund exactly 1 year ago and sold today you would have realized a return of less than 2% because while the yield is currently about 2.5% the price decrease over that time was about 1.5%. Your return would have been less than buying a single treasury yielding 2% a year ago and letting it mature.

[mvilim]

I don't think this has anything to do with how long you hold the fund. In essence, the original comment was using bond ladders as a proxy for holding bonds till expiration and using bond funds as a proxy for always liquidating your bonds and reinvesting at the new rate on any rate change. The question is really about holding vs liquidating bonds, not funds vs ladders (which theoretically could hold or liquidate, depending on their implementation). If the market is fairly priced, then there is no expected value difference between holding and liquidating.

In the example I gave above, the value of the fund in a year is still $102 (independent of whether they hold the bonds to maturity or whether they sell at the fair market value and reinvest at the higher rate). In your example, buying and holding a treasury would only be better than VGSH if the market on average underestimated the future interest rate over that time period (so that as VGSH rolled (i.e. liquidated and reinvested) its bonds at an average rate of less than 2%). This has less to do with holding vs liquidating than it has to do with fair pricing of the interest rate. The main difference between holding to maturity and rolling the bonds is this: if you hold to maturity you make a single large bet on the interest rate; if you roll your bonds, you make several smaller bets on the interest rate.

Yes, as you say, holding a bond instead of rolling it can lead to a different return (when the market expectation of the future rate is wrong). But for most people this is irrelevant, as they won't be better at valuing interest rates than the rest of the market.

[jterenzio]

I added a note in my article to clarify this. My strategy here is short-term. You want to withdraw your capital eventually, not hold forever. Maybe you are saving for a house in a few years. If you suspect that rates are still rising when you let your ladder burn down then this can be a good approach. I agree that for long term investments (ex. a retirement account) this is probably not the right approach. Thoughts on how I can make it more clear?

[mvilim]

I think your key point is this: "If you suspect that rates are still rising when you let your ladder burn down then this can be a good approach." I agree with this statement.

If you disagree with the market pricing of interest rates, then yes, you should do something other than the market (i.e. what the bond fund would do). Letting the ladder burn down (as opposed to continuing to roll, as the fund would) is claiming that the rates will be higher than the market is currently pricing them.

If you agree with the market pricing of bonds, then the ladder is equivalent to the bond fund (because the bond fund is simply managing the ladder for you by proxy).