Month: November 2019

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

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

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

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

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.

Reported death of the 60/40 Portfolio

/ Kiwi Investor / 6 Comments

The reported death of 60/40 portfolio, may well be exaggerated, but it certainly is ailing.

As reported by Think Advisor in relation to the 60/40 Portfolio (60% listed equities / 40% fixed income):

“No less than three major firms have issued reports in the last few weeks declaring it dead or ailing: Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan.” 

All three firms have similar reasons:

  • Low expected returns, particularly from Fixed Income
  • Reduced portfolio diversification benefits from Fixed Income

For example, JP Morgan: “Lower returns from bonds create a challenge for investors in navigating the late-cycle economy,” “The days of simply insulating exposure to risk assets with allocation to bonds are over.” (A risk asset example is listed equities.)

 

With regards to the declining diversification benefits from Fixed Income in a portfolio Bank of America make the following point: Fixed Income (Bonds) have functioned as an offset to equity market loses over the last 20 years, this may not occur in the immediate future.

Technically, fixed income has had a negative correlation to equity markets over the past 20 years, interestingly, this did not prevail in the prior 65 years.

 

Underpinning these views is the expectation of lower investment returns than experienced over the last 10 years. Access to JP Morgan’s Longer-term Capital Market assumptions are provided in the article.

There is no doubt we are living in challenging times and we are heading into a low return environment.  I covered in this in a previous Post: Low Return Environment Forecasted.  This Post provides an indication of the level of returns expected over the next 5 – 10 years.

 

What to do?

JPMorgan strategists are calling for “greater flexibility in portfolio strategy and greater precision in executing that strategy.”

I agree, to my mind, a set and forget approach won’t be appropriate in a low return environment, where higher levels of market volatility are also likely.

Naturally they are calling for a greater level of portfolio diversification and are recommending, Corporate bonds, Emerging market equities and bonds, U.S. real estate, Private equity, and Infrastructure investment.  The last three are unlisted investments.

 

 

Personally, I think the death of 60/40 Portfolio is occurring for more fundamental reasons. The construction of portfolios has evolved, more advanced approaches are available.

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).

The current market environment might quicken the evolution in portfolio construction.

 

Modern day Portfolios should reflect the lessons learnt over time, particularly from the Dot Com market collapse and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC or Great Recession).

Understanding the history of Portfolio Diversification is important. Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) was developed in the 1950s and resulted in the 60/40 portfolio.

Although MPT is still relevant today, the Post on the Short History of Portfolio Diversification highlights much more has been learnt since the 1950s.

 

Furthermore, we can now more easily, and more cheaply, gain greater portfolio diversification.  This includes an increasing allocation to alternative investment strategies and smarter ways to access investment returns.

This in part reflects the disaggregation of investment returns as a result of increased computer power and advancements in investment research.

As a result, Portfolios do not need to be over reliant on equities and fixed income to generate returns. A broad array of risks and return sources should be pursued.

This is particularly important for portfolios that have regular cashflows.  High listed equity allocations in these portfolios is a disaster waiting to happen e.g. Charities, Foundations, Endowments.

While those near or just entering retirement are vulnerable to Sequencing Risk and should look to diverse their portfolio’s away from listed equities.

 

There is still a place for active management, where real skill and truer sources of excess return are worth exploring and accessing. In fact, they complement the above developments.

There are shades of grey in investment returns, as a result the emotive active vs passive debate is out-dated.

 

I think KiwiSaver Investors are missing out and their portfolios should be more diversified.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

Charitable Foundation Investing, with Endowments

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

It is vitally important that Foundations, Endowments, and Charities have customised investment programs to better support their very long-term goals.

Not only is a customised investment program important in meeting their investment objectives, such a robust process will also help them in attracting new donors.

This Post reviews a paper written by Cambridge Associates on how community foundations can develop customized investment programs to better support their long-term goals.

The key to success is to have exposure to a truly diversified range of investment risks and returns.  A more diversified portfolio is recommended which has better risk and return outcome than a portfolio solely reliant on Equities and Fixed Income.

A high listed equity allocation is detrimental to a portfolio that has regular cashflows i.e. Endowments, Charities, and Foundations.

The point is that Foundations, Charities, and Endowments can increase their overall diversification and this will provide stronger return expectations. They need to play to their strengths, which includes their longevity.

 

As Cambridge note in their paper “One of the most important roles of a community foundation is to steward philanthropic assets well. A thoughtful and disciplined investment approach increases the probability of generating higher portfolio returns and amplifies the foundation’s philanthropic impact.”

“Each Foundation has a unique focus on the needs and priorities of its particular community, which translates into a particular mix of assets under management.”

Implementing a successful investment program requires a customized approach that considers all the philanthropic funds under management, their role in supporting philanthropy and programs, and how they come together in the aggregate.

 

Cambridge argue that an investment strategy that employs the endowment model can differentiate a foundation in a vast landscape of options available to donors. i.e. they are likely to attract more donors.

The Endowment Model of investing can deliver on investment and stewardship goals, but the approach requires a deep understanding of risk, liquidity, and investable assets, and may not be the appropriate strategy for all assets under management.

The endowment model is anchored to four core principles: equity bias, diversification, use of less-liquid or complex assets, and value-based investing.

 

Therefore, given “that each organization brings a unique combination of circumstances, the development of the optimal investment program starts with an enterprise review. This provides a deeper understanding of a foundation’s assets, fundraising flows, and the role the investment assets play in supporting the mission. These factors frame the portfolio’s risk and liquidity, which are then reflected in investment policy and implemented in portfolio construction.”

To illustrate a more robust investment approach, Cambridge provide an illustrated example by creating a representative community foundation with $500 million in assets under management.

 

As you know, Foundations, University Endowments, and Charities deliver a range of philanthropic, programmatic, and investment services.

Community foundations lead and serve their local community, fundraise, and deliver programs. Like private foundations, they identify grant-making opportunities and support charitable causes with grants and program-related investments.

 

Tailored investment solution

“Once truly short-term philanthropy has been set aside, community foundations often find that the aggregate portfolio of funds is aligned with a long-term investment strategy, because spending is matched by fundraising. This provides a level of stability for investment assets and indicates that liquidity requirements do not constrain investment policy. The foundation’s portfolio is in an advantageous position where spending needs are matched or exceeded by inflows of new funds, so the investment portfolio can take on more illiquidity to achieve return objectives.”

 

An individual can be characterised in a simply fashion, future liabilities of desired spending in retirement need to be “matched” by investment assets. This is the basis of Liability Driven Investing for Banks and Insurance companies and Goals-Based Investing for the individual.  Such an approach is appropriate for a Charity, Foundation, and Endowment.

 

Foundation Example

After undertaking a review of their representative Foundation, Cambridge note the foundation has a substantial level of non-endowed funds, those funds behave like long-term capital because of strong fundraising that replenishes fund levels each year. The foundation can thus grow assets and offer donors a risk-appropriate, competitive return on their philanthropic funds. “Optimizing the endowment investment offering further distinguishes the foundation from competitors.”

Given these endowment characteristics Cambridge argue the foundation can have a greater emphasis on less liquid investments such as private investments.

The point is that the Foundation can increase its overall diversification and this will provide stronger return expectations. Foundations, Charities, and Endowments need to play to their strengths.

 

With such an approach the Foundation is more likely to preserve its purchasing power and grow market value over time.

A more diversified portfolio is recommended which has better risk and return outcome than a portfolio solely reliant on Equities and Fixed Income.

As would be expected by any asset consultant extensive portfolio modelling has been undertaken to understand the resilience and robustness of the portfolio under different market conditions.

As would also be expected a more robust portfolio translates into greater performance over the long term, often with similar if not better protection in poor market conditions i.e. down markets.

 

Likewise, with an increased allocation to illiquid assets, stress testing of different liquidity scenarios is undertaken to gain an understanding of the recommended portfolio’s ability to support annual foundation operations, programs, and grant-making.

Scenario analysis includes the foundation deciding to maintain its level of grant-making to help grantees weather financial challenges, despite the fact that the effective spending rate will exceed its policy target, and the scenario were the Foundation cuts the fundraising achievement level in half, reducing the rate in which new capital is added to the portfolio.

Cambridge conclude ”To evaluate whether the recommended investment portfolio is a good fit, the foundation’s staff, investment committee, and board need to assess whether they are comfortable with the potential portfolio losses and levels of spending presented by a stress scenario. They will also need to consider whether the foundation will maintain grant funding (as modelled) or even grow grant funding in an economic downturn. While an investment policy’s focus is long term, it needs to be able to withstand difficult short-term periods.”

 

 

I have written a number of blogs on the risk of having high equity weightings and the benefits of true portfolio diversification.

A high equity allocation is detrimental to a portfolios that have regular cashflows i.e. Endowments, Charities, and Foundations. This was covered in a previous Post, Could Buffet be wrong? This Post highlights the devastating impacts listed equity market volatility has on a portfolio such as an Endowment/Charity/Foundation which need to provide regular income and to periodically draw on capital.

For those wanting a short history on the evolution of Portfolio Diversifications and the key learnings over time, this Post may be of interest. Current investment portfolios should reflect key learnings from previous market meltdowns.

My last Post, What Does a Diversified Portfolio Look Like? May also be of interest. This Post highlights that a diversified portfolio has a number of risk and return exposures and is not overly reliant on listed equities to generate investment outcomes.

 

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

What does Portfolio Diversification look like?

/ Kiwi Investor / 6 Comments

What does a diversified portfolio look like?

This is answered by comparing a number of portfolios, as presented below.

Increasingly Institutional investors accept that portfolio diversification does not come from investing in more and more asset classes. This has diminishing diversification benefits.   Investors are compensated for being exposed to a range of different risks.

True portfolio diversification is achieved by investing in different risk factors that drive the asset classes e.g. duration, economic growth, low volatility, value, illiquidity, and growth.

As a result, the inclusion of alternative investments is common place in many institutionally managed portfolios.

 

This Post draws heavily on a number of sources, including a very good article by Willis Tower Watson (WTW), Lets get the balance right.

The WTW article is extensive and covers a number of issues, of interest for this Post is a comparison between WTW Model portfolio and 30%/70% low cost Reference Portfolio (30% Cash and Fixed Income and 70% Equities).

To these portfolios I have compared a typical diversified portfolio recommended by US Advisors, sourced from the following Research Affiliates research paper.

 

Lastly, I have compared these portfolios to the broad asset allocations of the KiwiSaver universe.  Unfortunately I don’t have what a typical New Zealand Advisor portfolio looks like.

I have placed the data into the following Table for comparison, where Domestic reflects Australia and US respectively.

WTW Model Reference Portfolio Typical US Advisor
Domestic Cash 2.0%
Domestic Fixed Interest 13.0% 15.0% 28.0%
Global Fixed Interest 15.0%
Domestic Equities 15.0% 25.0% 35.0%
International Equities 20.0% 40.0% 12.0%
Emerging Markets 5.0% 5.0% 4.0%
Listed Property 3.0%
Global Property 3.0%
Listed Infrastructure 3.0%
Alternative Beta 8.0%
Hedge Funds 7.0% 8.0%
Private Equity 8.0% 4.0%
Unlisted Infrastructure 5.0%
Alternative Credit 8.0%
US High Yield 4.0%
Commodities / Real Estate 4.0%
Emerging Markets Bonds 1.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Broad Asset Classes
Cash and Fixed Income 15.0% 30.0% 28.0%
Listed Equity 49.0% 70.0% 51.0%
Non Traditional 36.0% 0.0% 21.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Non Traditional are portfolio allocations outside of cash, listed equities, and fixed income e.g. Private Equity, Hedge Funds, unlisted investments, alternative beta

The Table below comes from a previous Kiwi Investor Blog, KiwiSaver Investors are missing out, comparing Australian Pension Funds, which manage A$2.9 trillion and invest 22.0% into non-traditional assets, and KiwiSaver Funds which have 1% invested outside of the traditional assets. Data is sourced from Bloomberg and Stuff respectively.

Allocations to broad asset classes KiwiSaver Aussie Pension Funds
Cash and Fixed Interest (bonds) 49 31
Equities 48 47
Other / non-traditional assets 1 22

From my own experience, I would anticipate that a large number of Australian Pension Funds would have a larger allocation to unlisted infrastructure and direct property than outlined above.

 

If a picture tells a thousand words, the Tables above speak volumes.

The focus of this blog is on diversification, from this perspective we can compare the portfolios as to the different sources of risk and return.

 

It is pretty obvious that the Reference Portfolio and KiwiSaver Funds have a narrow source of diversification and are heavily reliant on traditional asset classes to drive performance outcome. Somewhat concerning when US and NZ equities are at historical highs and global interest rates at historical lows (the lowest in 5,000 years on some measures).

Furthermore, as reported by the Bloomberg article, the allocations to non-traditional assets is set to continue in Australia ”with stocks and bonds moving higher together, investors are searching for other areas to diversify their investments to hedge against the fragile global economic outlook. For the world’s fourth largest pension pot, that could mean more flows into alternatives — away from the almost 80% that currently sits in equities, bonds or cash.”

Globally allocations to alternatives are set to grow, as outlined in this Post.

 

The WTW Model portfolio has less of a reliance on listed equity markets to drive investment returns, maintaining a 49% allocation relative to the Reference Portfolio’s 70%.

Therefore, the Model Portfolio has a broader source of return drivers, 36% allocated to non-traditional investments.  As outlined below this has resulted in a similar return over the longer term relative to the Reference Portfolio with lower levels of volatility (risk).

 

Concerns of current market conditions aside, a heavy reliance on listed equities has a number of issues, not the least a higher level of portfolio volatility.

The Reference Portfolio and the KiwiSaver portfolios have a high allocation to equity risk. In a portfolio with a 65% allocation to equities, over 90% of the Portfolio’s total risk can be attributed to equities.

Maintaining a high equity allocation offers the prospect of higher returns, it also comes with higher volatility, and a greater chance for disappointment, as there is a wider range of future outcomes.

Although investors can experience strong performance, they can also experience very weak performance.

 

Comparison Return Analysis

Analysis by WTW highlights a wide variation in likely return outcomes from a high listed equity allocation.

By using 10 year performance periods of the Reference Portfolio above, since 1990, returns over a 10 year period varied from +6.4% p.a. above cash to -1.5% p.a below cash.

It is also worth noting that the 10 year return to June 2019 was the Cash +6.4% p.a. return. The last 10 years has been a very strong period of performance. The median return over all 10 year periods was Cash +2.6% p.a.

 

The returns outcomes of WTW Model are narrower. Over the same performance periods, 10 year return relative to Cash range from +6.2% and +0.2%.

 

Over the entire period, since 1990, the Model portfolio has outperformed by approximately 50bps, with a volatility of 6% p.a. versus 8% p.a. for the Reference Portfolio, with significantly lower losses when the tech bubble burst in 2002 and during the GFC. The worst 12 month return for the Reference Portfolio was -27% during the GFC, whilst the Model Portfolio’s loss was 22%

 

A high equity allocation is detrimental to a portfolio that has regular cashflows i.e. Endowments, Charities, and Foundations.  They need to seek a broad universe of return streams. This was covered in a previous Post, Could Buffet be wrong?

Likewise, those near or in the early stages of retirement are at risk from increased market volatility and sequencing risk, this is cover in an earlier Post, The Retirement Planning Death Zone.

For those wanting a short history of the evolution of Portfolio Diversifications and the key learnings over time, this Post may be of interest.

 

Let’s hope we learn from the Australian experience, where there has been a drive toward lowering costs. There is a cost to diversification, the benefits of which accrue over time.

As WTW emphasises, let’s not let recent market performance drive investment policy. The last 10 years have witnessed exceptional market returns, from which the benefits of true portfolio diversification have not been visible, nor come into play, and the low cost investment strategy has benefited. The next 10 years may well be different.

 

In summary, as highlighted in a previous Post, KiwiSaver Investors are missing out, their portfolios could be a lot more robust and better diversified. The risks within their portfolios could be reduced without jeopardising their long-term investment objectives, as highlighted by the WTW analysis.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

 

Global Economic and market outlook

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

For those looking for a balanced, rational, and insightful view of the global economy and outlook for financial markets, this article is worth reading.

 

I don’t normally post economic views on Kiwi Investor Blog as they are readily available. The quality of these views can also often be questioned.

It is also easier to find articles of doom and gloom, as they are more often promoted by the mainstream media, they attract more headlines.

 

This interview with Peter Berezin, of BCA, is the exception to the rule.

BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Berezin, is not worried about the current weakness of the global industrial sector. If anything, he expects the global economy is going to see a revival in growth over the next few quarters.

As the article outlines “Falling interest rates and the service sector which is cooling but still expanding give Berezin grounds for optimism. He considers the trade dispute to be the greatest risk. But he believes that both the US and China have an interest in reaching a deal before the next US presidential elections.”

“Berezin prefers equities to bonds. In the longer term, he expects painful losses for the latter because central banks underestimate inflation risks……..”

I’ll quickly summarise Berezin’s thoughts below, nevertheless, the article is well worth reading so as to form your own view and to be informed.

In summary Berezin made the following comments and observations:

  • He does not see the global economy heading for a recessions, as noted above if anything, he expects the global economy is going to see a revival in growth over the next few quarters. Financial conditions have eased significantly over the last six months largely due to the decline in government bond yields. Historically, easier financial conditions tended to translate into faster growth.
  • Provided that the trade war doesn’t heat up significantly, the global manufacturing sector is going to rebound later this year. That’s going to drive global growth higher.
  • He does not see any glaring imbalances in the US or globally that gives concern to a recession, noting the private sector globally is a net saver.
  • The trade dispute between the US and China is the biggest risk to his view. China is stimulating their economy.
  • He believes both parties have an incentive to cool things down – Trump so it does not do damage to the economy and his election changes. China – likewise so not to damage their economy, also they don’t like the prospect of negotiating trade if Trump does win the election and also if he doesn’t win the election – the Democrats are likely to be tougher on trade than Trump.

 

The above provides a taste, the article also covers the outlook for oil, inflation, and risk of regulatory impact on the large US technology companies.

 

What should investors do?

Berezin recommends investors to overweight equities relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. “Stocks are not particularly cheap, but they are certainly not very expensive either. The MSCI All Country World Index is trading at around 15.5 times forward earnings which is not too bad. Outside the US, stocks are trading at close to 13.5 forward earnings which is actually pretty cheap.”

Looking forward, his preferred regions are away from the US and towards the emerging markets and Europe.  This is subject to a pickup in the global economy.

In relation to Fixed Income (bonds), he sees “an environment in which government bond yields are rising”. This is a negative environment for bonds (as yields rise, bond prices fall).

 

It is worth noting that 2019 is turning out to be good year for investors, particularly those invested in a “Balanced Portfolio”, 60% Equities and 40% Fixed Income. Global equities have returned around 18% since 31 December 2018, likewise returns on New Zealand and Global Bonds have been around 8-10%. This follows a very hard year in 2018 in which to generate investment returns, with the possible exception of New Zealand equities.

Returns on a one year basis include sharp declines in global equity markets over the final three months of 2018. These negative returns will start to “unwind” out of annual returns so long as equity markets remain at current levels.

 

Happy investing.

Please read my Disclosure Statement

 

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