More needs to be done to address New Zealand’s post-retirement challenges

The next generation to retire is likely to have much lower retirement savings. Those aged 40 to 55 are effectively a lost generation.

They have limited defined benefit (DB) pensions as many occupational schemes closed early on in their careers and it took the government many years to develop and implement auto-enrolment.

These are some of the underlying themes of the 2019 UK Defined Contribution (DC) Investment Forum (DCIF) report.  A summary and discussion of this report was recently published in an IPE Article.

The key findings of the DCIF Report:

  • Members are sleepwalking into retirement and choosing the path of least resistance
  • The industry has been slow to address the challenges posed by pension freedoms
  • The best approach is seen as income drawdown in earlier years and longevity protection later in retirement
  • Further policy initiatives are required to build consensus and provide clarity

 

In summary, “The DC industry needs to do more to address post-retirement challenges”.

 

There are obviously issues specific to the UK market e.g. it has been five years since pensioners in the UK gained greater freedom to use their defined contribution (DC) pots.

Nevertheless, retirement issues are universal and key learnings can be gained from individual markets.

 

The IPE article outlined the key challenge facing providers: “how do you ensure members retain flexibility and choice, while ensuring those members can manage both the investment and longevity risk over decades of retirement?”

 

Overall, the UK industry response has been slow. It appears “Pension providers have been focused on designing the best default fund with little energy spent on the post-retirement phase.”

Interestingly, research in the UK by Nest, a €8.3bn auto-enrolment provider, found most members expect their pension pot to pay an income automatically on retirement.

Members are also surprised by the level of complexity involved in draw down products.

 

Post Retirement Investment Solution Framework

Despite the lack of innovation to date there appears to be a consensus about the shape of the post-retirement investment solution.

An appropriate Post-Retirement Investment Strategy would allow retirees to have decent levels of income during the first two active decades of retirement and longevity protection for after 80.

“Not only does this remove the burden of an unskilled person having to manage both investment and longevity risk, but it also prevents members from either underspending or overspending their pots”.

The idea is to turn a DC pension pot into an income stream with minimal interaction from the scheme member.

 

This is consistent with the vision expressed by Professor Robert Merton in 2012, see this Kiwi Investor Blog Post: Designing a new Retirement System for more detail.

 

As the IPE article highlights, it is important retirees are provided guidance to ensure they understand their choices.

Albeit, a core offering will deliver a sustainable income.  This is potentially a default solution which can be opted out of at any stage.

Some even argue that the “trustees would then make a judgement about what a sustainable income level would be for each member and then devise a product to pay this out.”

“In addition, this product could also provide a small pot of cash for members to take tax-free on retirement as well buying later-life protection. This could take the form of deferred annuities or even a mortality pool.”

 

Early Product Development in the UK

The IPE article outlines several approaches to assist those entering retirement.

By way of example, Legal & General Investment Management have developed a retirement framework which they call ‘four pots for your retirement’.”

  • First pot is to fund the early years of retirement – assuming retirees will spend the first 15 years wanting to enjoy no longer working; they will travel and be active.
  • Second pot provides a level of certainty to ensure retirees do not outlive their savings, this may include an annuity type product.
  • Third pot is a rainy-day pot for one-off expenses.
  • Final pot is for inheritance.

 

Greater Policy Direction

Unsurprisingly, there is a call for clearer policy direction from Government. Particularly in relation to adequacy, and the relation between adequacy and retirement products.

Unlike a greater consensus around what an investment solution might look like, consensus around the regulatory environment will be harder to achieve.

This may slow investment solution innovation to the detriment of retirees.

 

Concluding remarks

The following point is made within the IPE article: “While pension providers in both the US and Australia have come to the same conclusions as the UK about the way to address the retirement market, no-one in these markets has yet developed a viable product.”

As the IPE article note “It is likely the industry will be pushing at an open door if it develops a product that provides an income in retirement.”

This is a significant opportunity for the industry.

 

Interestingly, the investment knowledge is available now to meet the Post Retirement challenge. Also, Post-Retirement Investment solutions are increasingly being developed and are available. It is going to take a change in industry mind-set before they are universally accepted.

 

The foundations of the investment knowledge for the Post-Retirement Investment solution as outlined above have regularly been posted on Kiwi Investor Blog.

For those wanting more information, see the following links:

 

There will be change, a paradigm shift is already occurring internationally, and those savings for retirement need a greater awareness of these developments and the likely Investment Solution options available, so that they are not “sleepwalking into retirement and choosing the path of least resistance”.

 

I don’t see enough of the Post Retirement Challenges being addressed in New Zealand by solution providers. More needs to be done, the focus in New Zealand has been on accumulation products and the default option as occurred in the UK.

The approach to date has been on building as big as possible retirement pot, this may work well for some, for others not so well.

Investment strategies can be developed that more efficiently uses the pool of capital accumulated – avoiding the dual risks of overspending or underspending in the early years of retirement and providing a greater level of flexibility compared to an annuity.

These strategies are better than Rules of Thumb, such as the 4% rule which has been found to fail in most markets.

More robust and innovative retirement solutions are required.

 

In New Zealand there needs to be a greater focus on decumulation, Post Retirement solutions, including a focus on generating a secure and stable level of income throughout retirement.

The investment knowledge is available now and being implemented overseas.

Let’s not leave it until it is too late before the longevity issues arise for those retiring today and the next generation, who are most at risk, begin to retire.

 

Happy investing.

 Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

Why is the Multi-Asset Portfolio so Popular?

The rise of the Multi-Asset Portfolio can be traced back to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008, when many investors “grew disenchanted with the long-time investment mantra that equities were the one true way to wealth. That smug bromide rang hollow when the financial crisis slashed many stock portfolios in half”, according to recent Chief Investment Office (CIO) article, How Multi-Asset Investing Became So Popular.

Following the GFC, the mantra became diversify your holdings. As a result, Multi-Asset Portfolios, which combine equities, fixed income, and an array of other assets, gained greater prominence.

Multi-Asset Portfolios grew more popular on promises of greater capital preservation and sometimes the delivery of superior returns.

As CIO note, the increased prominence of the Multi-Asset Portfolio can be attributed to David Swensen, Yale’s investment chief since 1986. Yale has generated an impressive performance record by investing outside of just equities and fixed income. Their portfolio has included high allocations to private equity, real estate, and other non-traditional assets. (For more on the success of the Endowment model and the fee debate please see this Post.)

 

The CIO article also noted that Multi-Asset Portfolios are most prominent among target-date funds (TDFs), which have become the default offering among 401(k) plans (e.g. US superannuation schemes such as KiwiSaver in New Zealand).

“TDFs have grown five-fold since the financial crisis, reaching $1.09 trillion in 2018, a Morningstar report concluded, with an estimated $40 billion added last year.”

 

The Concept: Absolute returns and better risk management

The Multi-Asset Portfolio is based on the concept of absolute returns, where the focus is on generating a more targeted and less volatile investment return outcome. There is a greater focus on risk management relative to that undertaken within a traditional portfolio. The intensity and sophistication of risk management employed depends on the type of absolute return strategy.

The absolute return universe is very broad, ranging from Multi-Asset Portfolios to those with a much greater focus on absolute returns such as the plethora of Hedge Fund strategies, including Risk Parity as discussed in the CIO article.

This contrasts with the traditional balanced fund, which are generally less diversified, portfolio risk is dominated by the equity exposures, and returns are much more subject to the vagaries of investment markets. The management of risk is more focused on relative returns i.e. how performance goes relative to a market benchmark, rather than returns relative to an absolute return outcome.

A Multi-Asset Portfolio generally has more of an absolute return focus than a Traditional Portfolio. It achieves this by having a more truly diversified portfolio, moving beyond the traditional Balanced Portfolio (60% equities and 40% Fixed Income), to incorporate a greater array of different investment strategies and risk management approaches within the portfolio.

As the CIO article comments, “There’s a strong argument for Swensen-like multi-asset funds that range beyond stocks and bonds, adding solid helpings of commodities, real estate and all kinds of other asset classes. With such an array, the thinking goes, you’re best protected when recessions thunder in.”

 

Return Expectations

The CIO article made the following observation, Multi-Assets Portfolios are “expected to return 4.5% annually through 2024, according to Casey Quirk, an arm of Deloitte Consulting. That isn’t a daunting growth rate, but the figure should have a decent chance of holding steady, while public markets lurch around, especially in the next recession.”

To put this into perspective, a recent CFA Institute article estimated that a Balanced Portfolio will return 3.1% over the next 10 years.

It is highly likely we are heading into a “Low Return Environment”.

 

As a result, a different investment approach to that which has been successful over the last 20-30 years is likely needed to invest successfully in what is expected to be a Challenging Investment Environment.

As the CIO article notes, “But multi-asset now goes far beyond the simple stock-bond duality, which seems insufficient to deliver the best diversification. The most salient problem with the basic pairing nowadays is that bonds are paying low interest rates. Their ability to score capital gains is limited because rates don’t have much left to fall before they hit zero. “These don’t work as well as they used to,” observed Deepak Puri, CIO Americas for Deutsche Bank Wealth Management.”

 

I fear the lessons from the GFC and 2000 Tech Bubble are fading from the collective memory, as equity markets reach historical highs and investors chase income from within equity-income sectors of the sharemarket.

In addition, more advanced portfolio management approaches have been developed over the last 20 – 30 years.

It would seem crazy that these learnings are not reflected in modern day investment portfolios. In a previous Post: A Short History of Portfolio Diversification, it is not hard to see how the Multi-Asset Portfolio has developed over time and is preferred by many large institutional investors.

Meanwhile, this Post: What Portfolio Diversification looks like, compares a range of investment portfolios, including the KiwiSaver universe, to emphasis what a Multi-Asset Portfolio does look like.

 

Growth in Multi-Asset Portfolios to continue

Increasingly the Multi-Asset Portfolios are taking market share from traditional portfolios.

Institutional investors are increasingly adopting a more absolute return investing approach. This has witnessed an increased allocation, and growth in Funds Under Management, in underlying strategies, “such as private equity, hedge funds, real estate, natural resources, and other strategies whose assets aren’t publicly traded.”

 

An underlying theme of the CIO article is the Death of the Balance Portfolio, which I covered in a previous Post.

Personally, I think the death of 60/40 Portfolio is occurring for more fundamental reasons. The construction of portfolios has evolved, as noted above, more advanced approaches can be implemented. For those interested I covered this in more detail in a recent Post: Evolution within the Wealth Management Industry, the death of the Policy Portfolio. (The Policy Portfolio is the 60/40 Portfolio).

 

Concluding Remarks

The current market environment, of low expected returns, might quicken the evolution in portfolio construction toward greater adoption of Multi-Asset Portfolios and a more absolute return focus.

Therefore, the value is in implementation, identifying the suitable underlying investment strategies to construct a truly diversified portfolio, within an appropriate fee budget.

Wealth management practices need to be suitably aligned with this value adding activity.

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

Developing ETF Trends and Innovations – EDHEC Risk Research

The most recent EDHEC Risk Institute’s European Exchange Trade Funds (ETF) survey* provides valuable insights into the developing trends and innovation in relation to the use of ETF in a diversified and robust portfolio.

The following Post outlines the key findings of the EDHEC ETF survey, which is well worth reading.

 

The changing Purpose of using ETFS

Increasingly ETFs are being used for tactical allocation purposes. Historically the dominant purpose of ETF usage has been to gain a truly passive investment, a long-term buy-and hold investment to gain broad market exposures via the major market indices.

Results by EDHEC indicate there is now a greater usage of ETFs for tactical allocations rather than their role for long-term positions (53% and 51% respectively).

The survey also noted:

  • Gaining broad market exposure remains the focus of ETF for 73% of users, compared with 52% of respondents using ETFs to obtain specific sub-segment exposure.

 

As EDHEC note, the increasing focus on sub-segment exposures can be linked to product development, “which has led to the introduction of new products for a multitude of sub-segments of the markets (sectors, styles etc.). It also correlates with the growing use of ETFs for tactical allocations, which tend to favour a more granular investment approach over broad exposures.”

 

ETF Use continues to Grow**

The adoption of ETF continues to grow, particularly for the traditional asset classes. “In 2019 91% of respondents used ETFs to invest in equities, compared with 45% in 2006. As for governments and corporate bonds, the result went from 13% and 6% in 2006, to 66% and 68%, respectively, in 2019…”

“Investors prefer ETFs for traditional asset classes over alternative asset classes in line with this expression of conservatism in their use of ETFs, which is mainly focused on gaining access to broad market exposure”….

The Survey recorded a high level of satisfaction by investors with ETF in the traditional asset classes.

The survey also notes:

  • A high percentage of investors (46%) still plan to increase their use of ETFs in the future, despite the already high maturity of this market and high current adoption rates
  • Lowering investment cost is the primary driver behind investors’ future adoption of ETFs (74% of respondents in 2019).
  • ETF investors are planning to increase their ETF allocation to replace active managers (71% of respondents in 2019) and replace other passive investing products through ETFs (42% of respondents in 2019)

 

Future Growth and ETF Innovation Drivers

“Ethical/SRI and smart beta equity / factor indices are the main expectations for further development of ETF products”

Further developments where called for in the following market segments:

  • 31% of respondents wished for further development of Ethical/Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) ETFs.
  • ETFs related to advanced forms of equity indices – namely those based on multi-factor and smart beta indices – 30% and 28% of respondents

 

In aggregate 45% of respondents would like further development in one of the following areas of either smart beta indices, single-factor indices, and multi-factor indices.

 

More specifically, the EDHEC Survey found that “respondents would like to see further development of smart beta and factor investing products in the area of fixed income”……“The integration of ESG into smart beta and factor investing, and strategies in alternative asset classes (currencies, commodities, etc.), closely follow.”

 

EDHEC conclude, “It is likely that the development of new products corresponding to these demands may lead to an even higher take-up of smart beta and factor investing solutions.”

 

Criteria for selecting ETF Providers

The two main drivers of selecting an ETF provider are Cost and the quality of Cost and Quality of Replication. These two criteria dominate the survey results.

The long-term commitment of the provider, range of solutions, and level of innovation also rank highly.

 

Smart Beta and Factor Investing

The EDHEC Risk Survey has a large section on the drivers of using Smart Beta and Factor Investing Strategies.

Motivation for Smart Beta and Factor investing strategies include improving performance and managing risk

Albeit, the adoption of these strategies is a small fraction of portfolio holdings.

 

Concluding Comments

EDHEC found that there was a preference for passive for open-ended passive funds to invest in equity products, and active solutions to invest in fixed income products.

In relation for smart beta and factor investing the “take-up remains partial despite more than a decade of discussion in the industry, with the vast majority of adopters investing less than 20 per cent of their portfolio in such approaches.”

They find that this is partly due to a lack of ‘transparency and difficulty in accessing information about such strategies”….“In the case of fixed income strategies, investors express doubts over the maturity of research results at this stage. They also see a need for further development of long/short equity strategies based on factors, strategies that address client-specific risk objectives, and strategies that integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.”

Personally, I see an increasing demand for smart beta and factor investing within fixed income strategies. Whether this is within an ETF structure, time will tell.

 

Therefore, for product provides to capture the growth and innovation outlined above, as EDHEC highlight, there is work to be done “to improve their solutions for smart beta and factor investing strategies if they are to make it into the mainstream.”

This is an area of opportunity for ETF providers, particularly if it includes an ESG overlay.

 

Happy Investing

 

Please read my Disclosure Statement

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

 

* The 2019 EDHEC survey gathered information from 182 European investment professionals concerning their practices, perceptions and future plans. Respondents are high-ranking professionals within their organisations (34% belong to executive management and 42% are portfolio managers), with large assets under management (42% of respondents represent firms with assets under management exceeding €10bn). Respondents are distributed across different European countries, with 12% from the United Kingdom, 70% from other European Union member states, 14% from Switzerland and 4% from other countries outside the European Union.

* *  At the end of December 2018, the assets under management (AUM) within the 1,704 ETFs constituting the European industry stood at $726bn, compared with 273 ETFs amounting to $94bn at the end of December 2006 (ETFGI, 2018b).

Past Decade of strong returns unlikely to be repeated

The current return assumption for the average US public pension fund is 7.25%, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA), highlighted in a recent CFA Institute Blog: Global Pension Funds the Coming Storm.

This compares to the CFA Institute’s (CFA) article expected return for a Balanced Portfolio of 3.1% over the next 10 years.  A Balanced Portfolio is defined as 60% Equities and 40% Fixed Income.

Therefore, the article concludes that a 7.25% return assumption is “overly optimistic in a low return interest rate environment”.

The expected low return environment will place increasing pressure on growing pension liabilities and funding deficits. This is over and above the pressures of an aging population and the shift toward Defined Contribution (DC) superannuation schemes e.g. KiwiSaver.

This environment will likely require a different approach to the traditional portfolio in meeting the growing liabilities of Define Benefit (DB) Plans and in meeting investment return objectives for DC superannuation Funds such as KiwiSaver in New Zealand.

The value will be in identifying and implementing the appropriate underlying investment strategies.

 

Past Returns

For comparison purposes an International Balanced Portfolio, as defined above, has returned around 7.8% over the last 10 years, based on international fixed income and global sharemarket indices.

A New Zealand Balanced Portfolio has returned 10.3%, based on NZ capital market indices only.

New Zealand has had one of the best performing sharemarkets in the world over the last 10 years, returning 13.5% per annum (p.a.), this compares to the US +11.3% p.a. and China -0.7% p.a.. Collectively, global sharemarkets returned 10.2% p.a. in the 2010s.

Similarly, the NZ fixed income markets, Government Bonds, returned 5.4% p.a. last decade. The NZ 5-year Government Bond fell 4.1% over the 10-year period, boosting the returns from fixed income. Interestingly, the US 5-year Bond is only 1% lower compared to what it was at the beginning of 2010.

 

It is worth noting that the US economy has not experienced a recession for over ten years and the last decade was the only decade in which the US sharemarket has not experienced a 20% or more decline. How good the last decade has been for the US sharemarket was covered in a previous Post.

 

In New Zealand, as with the rest of the world, a Balanced Portfolio has served investors well over the last ten or more years. This reflects the strong returns from both components of the portfolio, but more particularly, the fixed income component has benefited from the continue decline in interest rates over the last 30 years to historically low levels (5000 year lows on some measures!).

 

Future Return Expectations

Future returns from fixed income are unlikely to be as strong as experienced over the last decade. New Zealand interest rates are unlikely to fall another 4% over the next 10-years!

Likewise, returns from equities may struggle to deliver the same level of returns as generated over the last 10-years. Particularly the US and New Zealand, which on several measures look expensive. As a result, lower expected returns should be expected.

The lower expected return environment is highlighted in the CFA article, they provide market forecasts and consensus return expectations for a number of asset classes.

 

As the article rightly points out, one of the best estimates of future returns from fixed income is the current interest rate.

As the graph below from the article highlights, “the starting bond yield largely determines the nominal total return over the next decade. So what you see is what you get.”

 

US Bond Returns vs. US Starting Bond Yields

US Bond Returns vs US Starting Bond Yields

 

In fact, this relation has a score of 97% out of 100%, it is a pretty good predictor.

The current NZ 10 Government Bond yield is ~1.65%, the US 10-Year ~1.90%.

 

Predicting returns from equity markets is more difficult and comes with far less predictability.

Albeit, the article concludes “low returns for US equities over the next 10 years.”

 

Expected Returns from a Balanced Portfolio

The CFA Article determines the future returns from a Balance Portfolio “By combining the expected returns from equities and bonds based on historical data, we can create a return matrix for a traditional 60/40 portfolio. Our model anticipates an annualized return of 3.1% for the next 10 years. That is well below the 7.25% assumed rate of return and is awful news for US public pension funds.”

Subsequent 10-Year Annualized Return for Traditional 60/40 Equity/Bond Portfolio

Subsequent 10 years annualized Return for Traditional 60 40 Equity Bond Portfolio.png

 

This is a sobering outlook as we head into the new decade.

Over the last decade portfolio returns have primarily been driven by traditional market returns, equity and fixed income “beta“. This may not be the case when we look back in ten-years’ time.

 

This is a time to be cautious. Portfolio strategy will be important, nevertheless, implementation of the underlying strategies and manager selection will be vitally important, more so than the last decade. The management of portfolio costs will also be an essential consideration.

It is certainly not a set and forget environment. The challenging of current convention will likely not go unrewarded.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

Global Pension Crisis

The Global Pension crisis is well documented. It has been described as a Financial Climate Crisis, the risks are increasingly with you, the individual, as I covered in a previous Post.

As the CFA article notes, the expected low return environment adds to this crisis, as a result deeper cuts to government pensions and greater increases in the retirement age are likely. This will led to greater in-equality.

 

This is a serious issue for society, luckily there is the investment knowledge available now to help increase the probability of attaining a desired standard of living in retirement.

However, it does require a shift in paradigm and a fresh approach to planning for retirement, but not a radical departure from current thinking and practices.

For those interested, I cover this topic in more depth in my post: Designing a New Retirement System. This post has been the most read Kiwi Investor Blog post. It covers a retirement system framework as proposed by Nobel Laureate Professor Robert Merton in his 2012 article: Funding Retirement: Next Generation Design.

 

Lastly, the above analysis is consistent with recent calls for the Death of the Balanced Portfolio, which I have also Blogged on.

Nevertheless, I think the Balanced Portfolio is being replaced due to the evolution within the wealth management industry globally, which I covered in a previous Post: Evolution within Wealth Management, the death of the Policy Portfolio. This covers the work by the EDHEC-Risk Institute on Goals-Based Investing.

 

In another Posts I have covered consensus expected returns, which are in line with those outlined in the CFA article and a low expected return environment.

In my Post, Investing in a Challenging Investment Environment, suggested changes to current investment approaches are covered.

Finally, Global Economic and Market outlook provides a shorter-to-medium term outlook for those interested.

 

Please note, I do not receive any payment or financial benefit from Kiwi Investor Blog, and a link to my Discloser Statement is provided below.

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

Target Date Funds – 25 Years of US Learnings

Launched in 1994, target-date funds now boast assets of more than $2 trillion in the US, according to a recent Wealth Management.com article, Target-Date Funds Aging Gracefully

The article concludes: “Naturally it is difficult to foresee how target date funds will evolve over coming decades, as the list of potential innovations is endless, but one thing is certain: the benefits target-date funds present both to plan participants and sponsors ensure they will play a dominant role in building comfortable retirements for years to come.”

The growth Target-Date Funds (TDF) has significantly changed the Defined Contribution (DC), superannuation, industry in the US.

TDF are also referred to as Life Stages or Life Cycle strategies.

 

Since their launch in 1994 TDF have become to dominate DC plans. According to the Wealth Management.com article total assets in TDF mutual funds alone have grown from about $278 million at the end of 1994 to more than $1.2 trillion in the second quarter of 2019.

Considering other investments, it is estimated that $2 trillion or about 25% of total DC assets today are invested TDF.

 

Why the Growth?

The growth in TDF can be attributed to their appeal to those saving for retirement (Participants) and those offering investment solutions e.g. Sponsors such KiwiSaver Providers.

For the Participant, TDF remove the “burden of creating an asset allocation strategy and choosing the investments through which they would execute it.” Participants do not need to make complicated investment decisions.

For Sponsors, they can “streamline their investment offering (reducing complexity and administrative costs), while meeting their fiduciary responsibility to participants.”

Also, and of particular interest given New Zealand is currently reviewing the Default option for KiwiSaver, TDF have also experienced a significant boost from the enactment of the Pension Protection Act (PPA) in 2006.

As noted by the Wealth Management.com article “The PPA relieved plan sponsors from fiduciary responsibility for investment outcomes if they provided a suitable Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA), such as TDFs, to anyone auto-enrolled in their plans. The combination of auto enrollment and safe harbor relief for plan sponsors paved the way for the wide adoption of TDFs.”

 

Future Growth and Innovation

The growth of funds invested into TDF is expected to grow, primarily from the ongoing innovation of the vehicle.

It is likely that the TDF will evolve into the key investment vehicle over the complete lifecycle of an investor, not only by accumulating capital for retirement (Defined Contribution Fund) but also helping generate a stable and secure income once in retirement (Defined Benefit Fund).

A recent enhancement to TDF is the addition of Guaranteed-income options. These Funds convert into a personalised investment plan for those seeking the security of a guaranteed income for life.

TDF offering guaranteed income are available now in the US, but they have not been widely embraced by either participants or plan sponsors. They do face a higher fee hurdle to be adopted. Albeit, the Wealth Management.com article notes “TDFs offering guaranteed income are likely to gain traction in the DC space. Participants contemplating decades in retirement naturally have concerns about outliving their savings, and guaranteed-income TDFs address that anxiety.”

 

The innovation and focus of these Funds is consistent with the framework proposed by EDHEC Risk Institute, as I outlined in the Post: A more Robust Investment Solution

They are also consistent with the Next Generation of Retirement solutions promoted by Nobel Laureate Professor Robert Merton: Funding Retirement: Next Generation Design, which was written in 2012. I summarise Professor Merton’s Paper in this Post: Designing a new Retirement System, which is the most read Kiwi Investor Blog Post.

 

Such considerations will greatly increase the efficiency of TDF.

These solutions are about making Finance great Again (Flexicurity in Retirement Income Solutions – making finance great again)

 

New Zealand Perspective

TDF would make more sense as a Default KiwiSaver solution, and stack up better relative to a Balanced Fund option (Balanced Funds not the Solution for Default Kiwi Saver Investors).

Lastly, the criticism of TDF is often due to poor design (In Defence of Target Date Funds).

An example is a large Kiwi Saver provider promoting a 65+ Life Stages Fund which is 100% investment in Cash. This is scandalous as outlined in this research by Dimensional, this research is summarised in the Post High Cash holdings a scandalous investment for someone in retirement.

 

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

How good will the next decade be for Investing?

“Adjusted for risk—or, more precisely, the volatility stock investors had to bear—gains in the S&P 500 index since Dec. 31, 2009, are poised to be the highest of any decade since at least the 1950s.” as outlined in a recent Bloomberg article, The Bull Market Almost No One Saw Coming.

Who would had thought that back in 2009?

 

As the Bloomberg article highlights, it has been a relatively smooth ride of late; equity market volatility has fallen in line with the sharp decline in interest rates over the last ten years.

Also assisting the smoother ride in US equity markets has been the lower volatility in US economic activity. The US economy has expanded by 1.6% to 2.9% in each of the previous nine years, a similar level of economic activity is expected in 2019. According to Bloomberg, based on standard deviation, that’s the smallest fluctuation over any 10-year stretch in data going back to 1930.

 

In fact, the 2010s were the first decade without a bear market, defined as a 20% drop from any peak.

For the record, US equities:

  • experienced six separate 10% corrections over the 2010s (to date!); and
  • In total have returned 249% in the past 10 years, about 1.2 times the historical average.

The US is amid the longest bull market ever (longest period in history without a bear market).

These gains have come when least expected.

 

They also follow a -20% decline over the previous decade (2000 – 2009). Which includes a -52% decline of the Great Recessions (Global Financial Crisis (GFC) – measured over the period October 2007 – February 2009. As at October 2007 the S&P 500 Index had only climbed 11% since the beginning of the decade.

 

How Good has it been?

As Bloomberg note, based on the Sharpe ratio, which tracks the performance of equity markets relative to Government Bonds, adjusted for the volatility of equity markets, the current Sharpe Ratio of the S&P500 is the best among any decade since at least Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency.

The last decade has not been all plain sailing and includes the following market events: May 2010 flash crash, Europe’s sovereign debt crisis in 2011 and ’12, and China’s currency devaluation in 2015.

A previous Post covered these market declines: Equity Market Declines in Perspective

More recently global markets have had to endure an ongoing trade and technology dispute between the US and China.

Central Bank actions, including the lowering of interest rates and quantitative easing (i.e. buying of market securities, mainly fixed income) has helped ease markets anxiety. This is reflected in the decline of market volatility indices, such as the VIX Index.

 

What does the next decade look like?

The sharemarket and economy are linked.

Generally a bear market (i.e. 20% or more fall in value) does not occur without a recession (a recession is often defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth).

Currently there are no excesses within the US economy, that normally precede a recession e.g. elevate inflation, excessive house prices, and high household debt levels.

This would tend to indicate that global equity markets can move higher.

 

Nevertheless, US equity market valuations are high, as are those of global Fixed Income markets.  This environment has resulted in many reporting the death of the traditional Balanced Portfolio (60% listed equities / 40% fixed income).

There are growing expectations that returns over the next decade will be lower than those experienced over the last ten years, as highlight in a previous Post: Low Return Environment Forecasted.

That Post has the following Table, GMO’s expected 7 year returns as at 31 July 2019. They estimated the real returns (returns after 2.2% inflation) for the following asset classes as follows:

Share Markets Annual Real Return Forecasts
US Large Capitalised Shares -3.7%
International Shares 0.6%
Emerging Markets 5.3%
Fixed Income Markets
US Fixed Income -1.7%
International Fixed Income Hedged -3.7%
Emerging Debt 0.7%
US Cash 0.2%

As GMO highlight, these are forward looking based on their reasonable beliefs and they are no guarantee of future performance.   Actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in forward looking statements.

 

It is very rare for decade of strong returns to be followed by a similar like decade.  Only time will tell.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt that a challenging investment environment is likely in the not too distant future. This Post outlines how to prepare and consider investing for such a challenging environment: Investing in a Challenging Investment Environment.

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

For a historical perspective of previous sharemarket corrections and bear markets please see my previous Post: History of Sharemarket corrections – An Anatomy of equity market corrections

Meanwhile, this Post, Recessions, Inverted Yield Curves and Sharemarket Returns, outlines the inter-play between the economic cycle and sharemarket returns.

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

 

The opportunity and role of active management

RBC Global Asset Management provides a strong case for the opportunity of active management and its role within a truly diversified portfolio.

As they note, there are considerable opportunities within markets for active managers to turn into reliable excess returns.

RBC’s analysis highlights that a large proportion of active share price movements, up to 75%, cannot be explained by market factors.

This is a large opportunity set for active managers. An opportunity set that is found to remain reasonably consistent over time.

The scale of the opportunity as demonstrated by RBC, if successfully captured, provides a potential source of excess returns and a true portfolio diversifier – which is a return outcome largely sourced from company/stock specific risks.

Nevertheless, active managers do need to evolve from historical practices and processes. From this perspective, the paper also provides great insights into the evaluation of a modern day active manager.

With regards to the success of active management, the Conventional Wisdom toward active management is changing. Specifically, the conventional wisdom is too negative on the value of active management.

The RBC article is well worth reading.

 

RBC emphasis “An active manager’s task is to capitalise on the fact that the market or index return is an average, and to use analysis and skill to identify those stocks that produce an above-average return and to avoid those that don’t.”

 

To capture the opportunity identified by RBC, they believe active managers need to find a way to turn share price movements into reliable excess returns.

To do this they believe that active managers must get two things right:

  1. Alpha generation: devise means of explaining and predicting the share price movements that are not explained by factors.
  2. Alpha capture: devise means of efficiently capturing alpha and turning it into reliable portfolio excess returns.

The RBC paper provides a lengthy discussion on what it likely takes to achieve this, including analysing the unique features associated with each business, including ESG factors, taking an active ownership role, and maintaining a long-term perspective.

Each company (security) has a unique performance history, which cannot all be explained by broad market factors.  Financial outcomes are partly dependent on management teams, brand, location, reputation, non-financial factors, and Culture. Analysis needs to be undertaken on the unique factors associated with each business.

Furthermore, accounting data is a poor measure of business value, there are extra financial factors, Governance, employee engagement, Health and Safety, ESG etc etc

 

RBC conclude “that the critical skill for stock pickers is understanding and evaluating extra-financial factors as well as assessing their impact on financial returns. Skill and expertise need to be developed to assess nuanced factors such as corporate culture, employee engagement, customer satisfaction, the business’s social licence to operate, maintenance and safety procedures, R&D effectiveness, brand and reputation, and these will vary from industry to industry and will also shift over time.”

See the article for fuller discussion on their perspective and type of analysis required by a modern day active manager.

 

Portfolio construction is also key, the size of portfolio positions matters.

Equity investments can be held in fractional holdings so it is possible to construct an almost infinite number of portfolios from a relatively modest number of securities.

Different combinations of securities will create portfolios with different factor exposures.   Which will cause variation in portfolio returns.

Therefore, Portfolio construction becomes the framework within which portfolio managers can assess the trade-off between “two often conflicting objectives: maximising exposure to their best investments vs. minimising exposure to unintended factor returns.“

 

My personal view is that many managers under estimate the value added from a solid portfolio construction approach, often it distracts value from a sound stock selection process.

 

One final point, the paper provides a good account of how active management has been disrupted by technology and the information revolution – computing power and access to company information. This has resulted in the rise of passive investing and factor-based investing. This has driven down fees.

The active management industry has changed dramatically, and active management has had to evolve. This is touched on within the Article.

Therefore, the Article provides insight from the perspective of manager selection and a potential lens with which to consider in evaluating modern day active managers.

 

The Role of Active management within a portfolio

From a Kiwi Investor Blog perspective, the active management described by RBC in the Paper “seeks to generate outperformance from stock-specific risk that lies outside the realms of factors. This is a different alpha source, hence it creates a return stream that is not correlated to factor returns.”, highlights the role active management can play within a truly diversified and robust portfolio.

Consistent with RBC, active managers can co-exist with passive and factor based strategies. Active management has a role to play within a Portfolio.

Why? Investors seek to access a wide range of investment risks and returns, seeking true portfolio diversification.

The source of risks and returns from active management that seeks to outperform from stock specific risks is a true portfolio diversifier, if done successfully.

This is consistent with many Posts on Kiwi Investor Blog around the disaggregation of investment returns.

Understanding the disaggregation of investment returns can assist in building a truly diversified and robust portfolio.

It can also help determine the appropriateness of fees being paid and if a manager is adding value.

 

Many institutional investors understand that true portfolio diversification does not come from investing in many different asset classes but comes from investing in different risk and return sources.  See earlier post More Asset Classes Does not Equal More Diversification.

The objective is to implement a portfolio with exposures to a broad set of different return and risk outcomes.  For example, the increasing allocation to alternative investment strategies by institutional investors globally, such as hedge fund strategies, to complement more traditional investments is evidence of this.

Essentially, and from a very broad view, investment returns can be disaggregated in to the following three parts:

  1. Market beta. Think equity market exposure NZX50 or S&P 500 indices (New Zealand and America equity market exposures respectively).
  2. Factor and Alternative hedge fund beta exposures.  See the Disaggregation of Investment Returns Post for a fuller discussion.
  3. Alpha. Alpha is what is left after beta and factors. It is the manager skill to capture the stock specific risks as outlined in RBC paper. Alpha is a risk adjusted return source.

 

With regards to the success of active management, the Conventional Wisdom toward active management is changing, as highlighted in this Post. The linked article in this Post is the most read from Kiwi Investor Blog.

The article undertakes a review of the most recent academic literature on active equity management and concludes by challenging the conventional wisdom of active management, “taken as a whole, our review of current academic literature suggests that the conventional wisdom is too negative on the value of active management.

 

Finally, the disaggregation of investment returns busts opens the active vs passive debate, the debate has moved on. It is no longer an emotive black vs white debate, risk and return sources come in many different shades. A truly diversified portfolio has as many different risk and return exposure as possible. It is from poor portfolio construction that portfolios fail.  The value is in implementation of a truly diversified portfolio.

 

It is evident that New Zealand portfolios need to become more diversified and that Kiwi Saver Investors are missing out.

 

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

Beginners guide to Portfolio Diversification. And why Portfolios Fail.

It is often asked if Modern Portfolio Theory failed during the Global Financial Crisis / Great Recession (GFC).

No, Modern Portfolio Theory did not fail during the GFC. Portfolio construction did.

During the GFC many investors did not have exposure to enough different asset classes and investment risks. This limited their protection from market loses.

Therefore, Investors should consider incorporating a wide range of different investment strategies as their core investment strategy. Investors should also clearly understand the sources of risk within their portfolio.

Furthermore, investors cannot necessarily rely on “what is traditionally thought of as diversification to meet their long-term goals.”

It is likely that many investors remain under-diversified today.

These are the views of a 2013 BlackRock Article, the new diversification: open your eyes to alternatives.

 

The discussion in 2012 with Dr Christopher Geczy is still very relevant today.

As we have seen previously, from what does portfolio diversification look like, many KiwiSaver Funds are under-diversified relative to Australian Superannuation Funds. Likewise, the Australian Future Fund is very well diversified relative to the New Zealand Super Fund.

 

Highlights of the BlackRock article are provided below.

They are presented to provide the rationale for seeking true portfolio diversification, as pursued by many of the largest investors worldwide, including Super Funds, Pension Funds, Foundations, Endowments, Family Officers, and Sovereign Wealth Funds. This group also includes the ultra-wealthy.

Albeit, the opportunity to have a truly diversified portfolio is open to all investors, the value is in implementation.

Currently, many New Zealand investors are missing out.

 

What happened during the GFC?

In short, as we all know, what happened during the GFC was a spike in financial market volatility, this led to all markets behaving in a similar fashion – technically market correlations moved to one. This reduces the benefits of diversification. As a result, many markets fell sharply in tandem.

Those markets that where already quite highly correlated became more correlated e.g. listed property with the broader share market.

As we also know, this often happens at time of market crisis, nevertheless, correlations can spike higher without a crisis.

The BlackRock article provides a comparison of market correlations prior to the GFC and correlations during the GFC.

 

For clarity, there are benefits from investing in different asset classes, regions, and so forth.

Nevertheless, although a traditional “Balanced Portfolio”, 60% shares / 40% Fixed Income, provides a smoother ride than an undiversified portfolio, the risks of the Balanced Portfolio are dominated by its sharemarket exposures.

It is well understood that for the Balanced Portfolio almost all the risk comes from the sharemarket exposures. On some estimates over 90% of the risk of a Balanced Portfolio comes from sharemarkets.

Therefore, investors should not only clearly understand the sources of risk, but also the magnitude of these risks within their portfolio.

 

What is the difference between Portfolio Diversification and Portfolio Construction?

Diversification is not as obvious as many think e.g. as outlined above in relation to listed property, a portfolio exposed to different asset classes may not be that well diversified.

As a result, and a key learning from the GFC, investors need to think in terms of risk exposures – risk diversification.

Investors should not think in terms of asset class diversification.

More asset classes does not equal more Portfolio Diversification.

This is because returns from of a range of asset classes are driven by many of the same factors. These can include: economic growth; valuation; inflation; liquidity; credit; political risk; momentum; manager skill; option premium; and demographic shifts.

So while investors have added a range of asset classes to their portfolio (such as property, infrastructure, distressed debt, and commodities) their portfolio risk remains similar at the expense of adding greater complexity and management cost.

Therefore, increasingly institutional investors accept that portfolio diversification does not come from investing in more and more asset classes. This has diminishing diversification benefits.

 

From a portfolio construction, and technical, perspective, this means thinking in terms of risk exposures and “getting exposure to as many different and non-correlated types of risk that they can.”

Portfolio construction = “building a portfolio based on risk exposures and not just so-called “asset classes” or “sub-classes.””

 

What does this look like?

Investors should seek exposure to a variety of risk exposures in proportion to their risk tolerances and individual circumstances.

The point being everyone should have a broadly diversified portfolio to the greatest extent they can. Investors should hold as many different assets and risk exposes as they possibly can.

Therefore, portfolios should likely include real assets, international investments, and long/ short investments. Alternative and Alternative investment strategies.

The real value is in implementing the portfolio construction, accessing the appropriate risk exposures efficiently.

As BlackRock emphases, Investors need to work with their financial professionals to choose and blend the risk exposures that make sense for their unique circumstances.

 

Low Correlated investments

If the objective is to seek a truly diversified portfolio, the exposure to low correlated assets, both in general and particularly in times of stress, is necessarily.

These exposures are largely gained via Alternative investments or Alternative Investment strategies.

“Alternatives” are a broad category, as defined by BlackRock, offering “sources of potential return and investments that provide risk exposures that, by their very nature, have a low correlation to something else in an investor’s portfolio.”

The concept of alternative investing is about going beyond what a traditional Balanced Portfolio might look like, by introducing new sources of diversification.

 

BlackRock provides a very good discussion on Alternatives, types of assets that would be considered alternatives and a discussion around implementation – highlighting the portfolio benefits of adding alternatives to a portfolio (improving the risk/reward profile). Also noting Alternative investments feared better during the GFC.

 

It is important to emphasis, as does BlackRock, that the inclusion of alternatives into the traditional portfolio is not a radical departure from the notion of managing risk and constructing portfolios. It helps in understanding what risks are being taken and broadens portfolio diversification.

The inclusion of alternative investments is common place in many institutionally managed portfolios. For further discussion, see my previous Post on adding alternatives to a portfolio, it is an Evolution not a Revolution.

 

BlackRock makes a final and important point, the world presents countless risks, and not all those risks can be accounted for in a traditional Balanced Portfolio. Investors need to be diversified in general, but they also need to be diversified for the extreme. If not, they may be setting themselves up for failure.

Do not become too dependent on one source of investment returns.

 

Summary

Investors need to clearly understand the sources of risk in their portfolios and should consider incorporating a wide range of different investment strategies and assets as their core investment strategy.

Furthermore, investors cannot necessarily rely on what is traditionally thought of as diversification to meet their long-term goals.

It was not Portfolio Theory that failed during the GFC but Portfolio Construction.

And this is where the real value lies, the ability and knowledge to implement a truly diversified portfolio.

Many investors very likely remain under-diversified today. Their portfolios do not fully reflect the key learnings from history as outlined in this Post.

 

In my mind, many New Zealand Investors are missing out.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

 

How do Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) stand up to rigorous analysis?

Exchange Traded Funds (EFTs) have not been subject to the same level of rigorous analysis undertaken upon actively managed funds.  Yet, ETFs are challenging conventional actively managed funds.

While performance of actively managed funds has been extensively investigated, there is not much known yet about the performance of ETFs.

A recent Paper by Robeco provides insightful analysis of ETF’s performance.

Robeco conclude “that the allure of ETFs finds little empirical support in the data and that ETFs have yet to prove that they can generate better performance than conventional actively managed funds.”

The Robeco paper provides a giant leap forward in bridging the imbalance of analysis between actively managed funds and ETFs.

 

Robeco rightly points out, the growth in ETFs has come with little supporting evidence.

They note there are areas in which to be cautious:

  1. “the main differentiator of ETFs, continuous trading, should be of little relevance to passive investors, since the whole idea of the passive approach is to buy and hold for the long term and refrain from trading altogether.”
  2. “not every ETF involves low costs. Whereas the cheapest ETFs have annual expense ratios below 0.05%, there are also ETFs with expense ratios above 1%, which makes them more expensive than many mutual funds”
  3. “if the purpose of ETFs were to facilitate passive investing, then, in theory, one ETF on the broad market portfolio would suffice. In reality one would expect perhaps a few more funds because of practical matters such as competition between different providers, different asset classes, or different time zones; however, not thousands of funds. While there is a handful of very big ETFs which track a broad market index such as the S&P 500, the vast majority of ETFs track indices that themselves represent active strategies.“

 

The Robeco analysis covers US-listed ETFs investing in US equities. It includes analysis of over 900 ETFs, almost $1.9 trillion in AUM, over the period 1993 to the end of 2017.

The Robeco paper also provides a very good analysis on the breakdown of the ETF market, history, size, and different types of strategies.

 

The Results

Robeco’s analysis is the same as that applied to actively managed funds in the academic literature.

“Based on realized returns, 60% of ETFs underperformed the market, 80% exhibited higher volatility, and 80% underperformed in terms of Sharpe ratios. Such figures do not appear to be much different from what has been reported for actively managed mutual funds.“

Robeco zoom in on the different types of ETFs, they find:

  • the small number of generally big ETFs, which aim to track one of the broad market indices, live up to their promises.
  • The weak overall performance of ETFs turns out to be mainly driven by the large number of ETFs that do not aim to replicate any of the broad market indices. In particular, leveraged and inverse equity ETFs

 

Factor Analysis

Robeco undertook analysis on ETFs invested into common investment styles e.g. size, value, momentum, quality, and low-risk.

Their analysis highlighted that none of them managed to consistently add value relative to a capitalization-weighted market portfolio of all US stocks.

“The magnitude of these alphas again appears to be quite similar to what one might expect from conventional actively managed funds.”

This can be partly attributed to the poor performance of equity factors over recent years. The recent environment has not been favourable for the performance of many equity factors e.g. Value.

As Robeco note, “Given that some factor ETFs do provide large and significant exposures to the targeted factors, they can be expected to add value if factor premiums rebound in the future. A caveat here is that the factor exposures of some ETFs may have been obtained by pure accident, which means that these exposures might change in the future.”

In other words, implementation of the factor exposure is critical, this will determine success or otherwise.  The implementation of the factor approach undertaken by the ETF needs to be appropriately researched.

 

Conclusions

Robeco conclude “the performance of ETFs is not as impressive as one might expect it to be, as investors in these ETFs have collectively realized a performance that does not appear to be much different from the performance that can be expected from the conventional actively managed mutual funds.”

 

This Post is not to be taken as an assault on ETFs, they can play a role in a robust portfolio. As can active management. There are shades of grey in investment returns, as a result the emotive active vs passive debate is outdated.

Nevertheless, the growth in Exchange Traded Funds has been spectacular over the last decade and it is only appropriate they are subject to the same level of rigorous research as an actively managed investment strategy.

All investment decisions should be based on robust, independent, diligent, and thorough investment analysis.

Although this may appear self-evident too many, there are good reasons to be cautious in the selection of ETFs as highlighted by the Robeco analysis.

 

In fact, the future trends in ETFs is rather daunting, as highlighted by a 2018 EDHEC ETF Survey.  EDHEC updated this Survey in 2019.

 

Happy Investing

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand.  Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.

 

 

 

 

New Zealand Super Fund vs the Australian Future Fund

The analysis below compares the variation in portfolio allocations between the Sovereign Wealth Funds of New Zealand and Australia, the New Zealand (NZ) Super Fund (Kiwis) and Australian Future Fund (Aussies).

Many of the insights are relevant for those saving for retirement or are in retirement.

A light-hearted approach is taken.

 

A previous Post, What Does Diversification Look Like compared Australian Superannuation Funds to the KiwiSaver universe, the Aussies won easily, with more diverse portfolio allocations.

However, this comparison is amongst the top echelon of the nation’s investment funds, a Test match of portfolio diversification comparisons, sovereign wealth fund vs sovereign wealth fund, the All Blacks vs the Wallabies, the Black Cap vs the Baggy Green, the Silver Ferns vs the Diamonds ………………

Let’s gets stuck into the Test Match Statistics.

 

Test Match in Play

 

NZS

Future Fund

Kiwi vs Aussie Difference

Int’l Equities

56.0%

18.5%

37.5%

Emerging Markets

11.0%

10.0%

Domestic Equities

4.0%

7.0%

Fixed Income

9.0%

9.0%

Alternatives
Infrastructure & Timberland

7.0%

7.5%

-0.5%

Property

2.0%

6.7%

-4.7%

PE

5.0%

15.8%

-10.8%

Alternatives 13.5%

-13.5%

Rural

1.0%

Private Mkts

3.0%

Public Mkts

2.0%

Cash

11.9%

100%

100%

           
High Level Allocations          
Equities

71.0%

35.5%

35.5%

Fixed Income

9.0%

9.0%

0.0%

Cash

11.9%

-11.9%

Alternatives

20.0%

43.5%

-23.5%

100%

100%

 

High Level Match Coverage:

  • The Kiwis are highly reliant on International Equities to drive performance – let’s hope they don’t get injured.
  • The Aussies currently have a higher allocation to Cash – are they holding something in reserve
  • The Aussies, with a higher Alternative allocation, on the surface, and looking at the detail below, have a more broadly diversified line up – depth to come off the bench
  • The Aussies have a much higher allocation to Private Equity,15.8 vs 5% – might have something to do with their schooling
  • Interestingly both have a similar allocation to Emerging Market Equities ~10% – both are willing to be adventurous

 

The standout is the difference in the international equities exposures, the Kiwis have a ~37% higher allocation, the majority of this difference is invested into Private Equity (+~10%), Property (+~4.7%), and Alternatives (+~13%) by the Aussies.

 

As for the detail

  New Zealand Australia
Infrastructure & Timberlands

Of the total 7%, 5% is in Timberlands, the Kiwis have 1% invested in NZ rural land and farms

Of the 7.5%, 1.7% is invested in listed infrastructure equities, 3.4% is invested in Australian assets, 2% is invested offshore. An array of infrastructure assets is invested in.
Alternatives Not sure how this is categorised by the Kiwis (Public Markets?), they have 2% invested in Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance and Life Settlements.

 

The Kiwis also have allocations to Merger Arbitrage.

The Aussies have 13.5% invested into Multi-Strategy/Relative Value hedge fund strategies, Macro – Directional strategies, and Alternative Risk Premia strategies.

 

These strategies are relatively easy to invest into and provide well documented portfolio diversification benefits relative to other hedge fund type strategies.

Property   1.9% of the Fund is invested in Listed Property, 4.8% is invested in direct property.

 

Post-Match interviews

It is true, the only interview is with my keyboard, and the above is high level and rudimentary.

Nevertheless, on the surface the Aussies appear to have a more broadly diversified line up, which may play into their hands in tougher games e.g. global equity bear market.

There is certainly less of a reliance on listed equities to drive the performance of the Aussies.

Put another way, the Aussies might have a better line up to get them through a world cup campaign, able to hold up in different playing conditions (i.e. different market environments. The exception would be a strong global equity bull market, which would favour the Kiwis. Albeit the Aussie’s performance has been competitive over the last 10 years relative to the Kiwis – unlike the Wallabies!).

 

Therefore, the Aussie portfolio allocation will lead to a smoother and more consistent team performance.

 

Why the Difference

The difference in portfolio allocations can be for several reasons. I would like to highlight the following:

 

Investment Objectives

In many respects they both have similar objectives, to support future Government spending. They are both investing for future generations. The Kiwi specifically for future super payments and Aussies more so for the General Fund.

 

Return Objectives

Interestingly they have similar return objectives.

From 1 July 2017 the Aussie’s long-term benchmark return target has been CPI + 4% to 5% per annum. This has been lowered from previous years, reflecting a changed investment environment.

The Kiwi’s don’t appear to have a specific return target.

Nevertheless, the Kiwi Reference Portfolio, which they are currently reviewing, is expected to generate a return of Cash plus 2.7%.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) in a 2015 research paper estimated the long-term “neutral” 90-day interest rate is around 4.3%. Although this seems high given the current market environment, bear-in-mind it is a long-term estimate.

If we assume inflation is 2%, the mid-point of the RBNZ’s inflation target range of 1-3%, and a lower Cash rate, then Cash generates a 2% return over inflation.

Thus, the Kiwi objective is comparable to a CPI + 4.7% return.

 

Therefore, the return objectives are not too dissimilar between the two Teams, even if we make further conservative assumptions around the long-term neutral interest rate in New Zealand and its expected return above inflation – which I think will come down from its historical average.

If anything, the Kiwi’s return objective is more conservative than the Aussies, all else being equal, this would support a lower equity allocation relative to the Aussies, not a higher equity allocation as is the case.

 

It is interesting, for similar return objectives they have such a difference in equity exposure.

This is an issue of implementation.

The Aussies are seeking a broader source of returns through Private Equity, Alternative strategies, direct property, and unlisted infrastructure.  This will help them in different playing conditions – market environments.

 

Drawdown Requirements

There is a difference in when the funds will be drawn upon i.e. make payments to the Government.

In Australia, legislation permits drawdowns from the Future Fund from 1 July 2020. The Government announced in the 2017-18 budget that it will refrain from making withdrawals until at least 2026-27.

The Kiwis have a bit longer, from around 2035/36, the Government is expected to begin to withdraw money from the Fund to help pay for New Zealand superannuation. On current forecasts, a larger, permanent withdrawal period will commence in 2053/54.

 

Therefore, the Funds do have different maturity profiles and this can be a factor in determining the level of equity risk a portfolio may maintain.

 

One way of looking at this is that the Aussies are closer to “retirement”, there will no longer be deposits into the Fund and only capital withdrawals from 2026. Much like entering retirement.

Therefore, it would be prudent for them to have a lower equity allocation and higher level of portfolio diversification at this time, so there is a wider return source to draw upon.

The Kiwis have a bit longer until they enter retirement.

I would imagine that the Kiwis will move their portfolio closer to the current Aussies portfolio over time, as they “age” and get closer to the decumulation/drawdown phase (retirement), expected to commence around 2035 (16 years’ time).

The Kiwis will likely be considering this now, as they will want to reduce their sequencing risk, which is the risk of experiencing a major drawdown just before and just after entering the drawdown phase (retirement). I covered this in a previous Post, The Retirement Death Zone.

Likewise, they will not want to hold high levels of Equities once withdrawals commence (are in retirement).

Maintaining high levels of listed equities can significantly reduce the value of a portfolio that has regular withdrawals and there is a high level of market volatility. This is the case for Charities, Foundations, and Endowments.

For more on this, see my previous Post, Could Buffett be wrong, which highlights the impact on portfolios when there are regular withdrawals and equity market volatility.

 

Team Philosophy

Differences in Investment Philosophy could account for differences in portfolio allocations. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any measurable difference in Philosophy.

 

Resources and fee budgets

This is probably the most contentious factor. Fund size, team resources, and fee budgets can influence portfolio allocations. Those with a limited fee budget will find it challenging to diversify equity risk.

I am not saying this is an issue for the Kiwis, I would only be speculating. The Aussies have a good size budget based on their recent annual report.

Let’s hope it is not a factor for the Kiwis, an appropriate investment management fee budget will be required for them to satisfactorily meet their objectives and exceed expectations – as any good sports team know.

This is an aged old industry issue. My Post on Investment Fees and Investing like US Endowments covers my thoughts on the fee budget debate.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Global Investment Ideas from New Zealand. Building more Robust Investment Portfolios.