Although it has been evident for several years, the current investment environment highlights the shortcomings of the one size fits all multi-asset portfolio (commonly known as Diversified Funds such as Conservative, Balanced, and Growth Funds, which maintain static Strategic Asset Allocations, arising to the reference of the “Policy Portfolio”).
The mass-produced Diversified Funds downplay the importance of customisation by assuming investment problems can be portrayed within a simple risk and return framework.
However, saving for retirement is an individual experience requiring tailoring of the investment solution. Different investors have different goals and circumstances. This cannot be easily achieved within a one size fits all Diversified Fund.
Modern-day investment solutions involve greater customisation. This is particularly true for those near or in retirement.
A massive step toward offering increased customisation of the Wealth Management investment solution is the framework of two distinctive “reference” portfolios: A Return Seeking Portfolio; and Liability-Hedging (Capital Protected) Portfolio.
Details and implementation of this framework are provided in the next section. The benefits of the framework include:
- A better assessment of the risks needed to be taken to reach a client’s essential goals and how much more risk is involved in potentially attaining aspirational goals;
- An approach that will help facilitate more meaningful dialogue between the investor and his/her Advisor. Discussions can be had on how the individual’s portfolios are tracking relative to their retirement goals and if there are any expected shortfalls. If there are expected shortfalls, the framework helps in assessing what is the best course of action and trade-offs involved; and
- A more efficient use of invested capital. This is a very attractive attribute in the current low interest rate environment. The framework will be more responsive to changing interest rates in the future.
These benefits cannot be efficiently and effectively achieved within the traditional Diversified Fund one size fits all framework; greater customisation of the investment solution is required.
With modern-day technology greater customisation of the investment solution can easily be achieved.
The technology solution is enhanced with an appropriate investment framework also in place.
Implementation of the Modern-Day Wealth Management Investment Solution
The reasons for the death of the Policy Portfolio (Diversified Fund) and rationale for the modern-day Wealth Management investment solution are provided below.
Modern-day investment solutions have two specific investment portfolios:
- Return seeking Portfolio that is a truly diversified growth portfolio, owning a wide array of different return seeking investment strategies; and
- Capital Protected (Liability) Portfolio, is more complex, particularly in the current investment environment. See comments below.
The allocations between the Return Seeking portfolio and Capital Protected portfolio would be different depending on the client’s individual circumstances. Importantly, consideration is given to a greater array of client specific factors than just risk appetite and risk and return outcomes e.g. other sources of income, assets outside super.
Although the return seeking portfolio can be the same for all clients, the Capital Protected (Liability) portfolio should be tailored to the client’s needs and objectives, being very responsive to their future cashflow/income needs, it needs to be more “custom-made”.
The solution also involves a dynamic approach to allocate between the two portfolios depending on market conditions and the client’s situation in relation to the likelihood of them meeting their investment objectives. This is a more practical and customer centric approach relative to undertaking tactical allocations in relation to a Policy Portfolio.
The framework easily allows for the inclusion of a diverse range of individual investment strategies. Ideally a menu offering an array of investment strategies can be accessed allowing the customisation of the investment solution for the client by the investment adviser.
Implementation is key, which involves identifying and combining different investment strategies to build customised robust investment solutions for clients.
The death of the Policy Portfolio
Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), the bedrock of most current portfolios, including the Policy Portfolio, was developed in the 1950s.
Although key learnings can be taken from MPT, particularly the benefits of diversification, enhancements have been made based on the ongoing academic and practitioner research into building more robust investment solutions. See here for a background discussion.
The Policy Portfolio is the strategic asset allocation (SAA) of a portfolio to several different asset classes deemed to be most appropriate for the investor e.g. Diversified Funds
It is a single Portfolio solution.
A key industry development, and the main driver of the move away from the old paradigm, is the realisation that investment solutions should not be framed in terms of one all-encompassing Policy Portfolio but instead should be framed in terms of two distinct reference Portfolios.
A very good example of the two portfolios framework is provided by EDHEC-Risk Institute and is explained in the context of a Wealth Management solution. They describe the two reference portfolios framework involving:
- Liability-hedging portfolio, this is a portfolio that seeks to match future income requirements of the individual in retirement, and
- Performance Seeking Portfolio, this is a portfolio that seeks growth in asset value.
The concept of two separate portfolios is not new, it dates to finance studies from the 1950s on fund separation theorems (which is an area of research separate to the MPT).
The concept of two portfolios has also been endorsed by Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Memorial Prize-winning behavioural economist, a “regret-proof” investment solution would involve having two portfolios: a risky portfolio and a safer portfolio. Kahneman discusses the idea of a “regret-proof policy” here.
The death of the Policy Portfolio was first raised by Peter Bernstein in 2003.
Reasons for the death of Policy Portfolio include:
- there is no such thing as a meaningful Policy Portfolio. Individual circumstances are different.
- Investors should be dynamic; they need to react to changing market conditions and the likelihood of meeting their investment goals – a portfolio should not be held constant for a long period of time.
Many institutional investors have moved toward liability driven investment (LDI) solutions, separating out the hedging of future liabilities and building another portfolio component that is return seeking. More can be found on LDI here.
These “institutional” investment approaches, LDI, portfolio separation, and being more dynamic are finding their way into Wealth Management solutions around the world.
Evolution of Wealth Management – Implementation of the new Paradigm
In relation to Wealth Management, the new paradigm has led to Goal-Based investing (GBI) for individuals. GBI focuses is on meeting investor’s goals along similar lines that LDI does for institutional investors.
As explained by EDHEC Risk Goal-Based Investing involves:
- Disaggregation of investor preferences into a hierarchical list of goals, with a key distinction between essential and aspirational goals, and the mapping of these groups to hedging portfolios possessing corresponding risk characteristics (Liability Hedging Portfolio).
- On the other hand, it involves an efficient dynamic allocation to these dedicated hedging portfolios and a common performance seeking portfolio.
GBI is consistent with the two portfolios approach, fund separation, LDI, and undertaking a dynamic investment approach.
The first portfolio is the Liability Hedging Portfolio to meet future income requirements, encompassing all essential goals.
The objective of this Portfolio is to secure with some certainty future retirement income requirements. It is typically dominated by longer dated high quality fixed income securities, including inflation linked securities. It does not have a high exposure to cash. In the context of meeting future cashflow requirements in retirement Cash is the riskiest asset, unless the cashflows need are to be met in the immediate future. For further discussion on the riskiness of cash in the context of retirement portfolios see here.
The second portfolio is the return seeking portfolio or growth portfolio. This is used to attain aspirational goals, objectives above essential goals. It is also required if the investor needs to take on more risk to achieve their essential goals in retirement i.e. a younger investor would have a higher allocation to the Return Seeking Portfolio.
The Growth Portfolio would be exposed to a diversified array of risk exposures, including equities, developed and emerging markets, factor exposures, and unlisted assets e.g. unlisted infrastructure, direct property, and Private Equity.
Allocations between the Hedging Portfolio and the Growth Portfolio would depend on an individual’s circumstances e.g. how far away they are from reaching their desired standard of living in retirement.
This provides a fantastic framework for determining the level of risk to take in meeting essential goals and how much risk is involved in potentially attaining aspirational goals.
This will will lead to a more efficient use of invested capital and a better assessment of the investment risks involved.
Importantly, the framework will help facilitate a more meaningful dialogue between the investor and his/her Advisor. Discussions can be had on how the individual’s portfolios are tracking relative to their retirement goals and if there are any expected shortfalls. If there are expected shortfalls, the framework also helps in assessing what is the best course of action and trade-offs involved.
For those wanting a greater appreciation of EDHEC’s framework please see their short paper: Mass Customization versus Mass Production – How An Industrial Revolution is about to Take Place in Money Management and Why it Involves a Shift from Investment Products to Investment Solutions (see: EDHEC-Whitepaper-JOIM)
A more technical review of these issues has also been undertaken by EDHEC.
Please see my Disclosure Statement