If this were true (and I am not arguing one way or the other in this post), then why would the overwhelming majority of bond funds/etfs pursue a clumped (bulletesque) approach instead of a ladder?Larry's point was that a ladder with a 5 year average maturity would have higher return than most funds with a 5 year average maturity, claiming that the fund would mimic a constantly rolled 5 year bond, while the ladder could have the return of a 10 year bond, with the risk of the rolling five year bond. Others disagreed. You seem among those who disagree.
If it is cost/ tax efficiency that is one thing, but there would be no reason for funds to offer an inferior product de novo...