The Traditional Diversified Fund is outdated – greater customisation of the client’s investment solution is required

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:

  1. Liability-hedging portfolio, this is a portfolio that seeks to match future income requirements of the individual in retirement, and
  2. 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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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

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

Are Investment products meeting people’s needs over their working life?

A key finding by the Australian Productivity Commission is that “Well-designed life-cycle products can produce benefits greater than or equivalent to single-strategy balanced products, while better addressing sequencing risk for members.

There are also good prospects for further personalisation of life-cycle products that will better match them to diverse member needs, which would require funds to collect and use more information on their members.

Some current MySuper life-cycle products shift members into lower-risk assets too early in their working lives, which will not be in the interests of most members.”

 

This is one of many findings from of the 2018 Australian Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, Superannuation: Assessing Efficiency and Competitiveness.

Mysuper is a default option in Australia, similar to the Default Options by Kiwisaver providers in New Zealand and around the world.

 

The above findings are from the Section 4, Are Members needs being met, of the report (pg 238). This section, 4.3, Are products meeting people’s needs over their working life?, focuses on Life Cycle Funds. (Lifecycle Funds are often referred to as target-date funds in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries. They are popular in the US, accounting for 25% of their saving for retirement assets, and growing.)

Life cycle Funds, also referred to as Glide Path Funds, reduce the equity allocation in favour of more conservative investments, fixed interest and cash, as the investor gets closer to retirement.

 

Section 4.3 concludes “the Commission now recognises the value of well-designed MySuper life-cycle products, and the potentially significant gains that could arise from further personalisation.”

As covered in the report, they highlight that the poorer products currently on offer “requires some cleaning.”

 

Two areas of Section 4.3 are of interest to me.

 

The relative attractiveness of Lifecycle Funds

The report covers the varying views on Lifecycle Funds.

On this the Commission notes that the underperformance of some Lifecycle Funds does not “repudiate the principle of varying the management of risk as a person ages.”

Importantly, the “costs and benefits of life-cycle products depend on their design and on the characteristics of fund members (for example, the size of their balance).”

They note “the determinant of the variation between life-cycle products is the glide path from growth to defensive assets as the member ages”

“The lowest average retirement balances occur for life-cycle products with accelerated transitions to defensive assets as the member ages.”

 

As noted by several submissions, Lifecycle Funds can provide better outcomes if they maintain a higher growth allocation in the earlier years of saving for retirement. They also offer additional benefits in market downturns, particularly closer to retirement, they produce less poor outcomes than a standard single-strategy product, such as a Balanced Fund i.e. they manage sequencing risk better.

 

The criticism of Lifecycle Funds is often associated with poor design, as covered in this Post.

 

Increased Customisation of the Investment Solution

It is important to appreciate that not one investment product can meet all investor’s needs.  It does not make sense for a 29 year old and a 50 year to be in the same Default Fund.

This is an attractive feature of Lifecycle Fund offerings, they can be more tailored to the investor.

Specifically, they can be tailored for more than just age, such as Balance size, and this can in the majority of cases result in better outcomes for those saving for retirement. As outlined in this research article by Rice Warner.  Tailored investment solutions boost retirement savings outcomes.

 

On this point the Commission’s Report notes “There is significant scope for more personalised MySuper products”…

Specifically there is the scope to customise the investment strategy of Lifecycle Funds beyond age.

The report outlined a submission that observed that “… data and technology provide the opportunity for giant advancements in the design of personalised lifecycle strategies. Such strategies could account for: age, balance, contribution rate (which entails non-contribution due to career breaks etc), gender, expected returns, [and] risk.”

“Ultimately, individualised product design could also take into account other member characteristics, such as household assets, income from any partner and the potential capacity to extend a working life if there are adverse asset price shocks.”

 

The following two submissions in relation to Lifecycle Funds by David Bell and Aaron Minney are well worth reading for those wanting a greater understanding and appreciation of broader topics associated with Lifecycle Funds.

These submissions are also well worth reading by those interested in designing effective investment solutions for those saving for retirement.

 

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

Tailored Investment solutions boost superannuation outcomes – Lifecycle Funds outperform Balanced Funds

A greater level of customisation leads to better investment outcomes for investors.

For example, Multifactor Lifecycle Funds that focus on age and size of account balances are best placed to last the distance as we live for longer in retirement, compared to a Balanced Fund and Lifecycle Funds that focus on age alone.

Multifactor Lifecycle Funds:

  1. Generate higher expected lifetime income relative to a Balanced Fund (70% equities and 30% Fixed Income and Cash); and
  2. Outperform a Balanced Fund over 90% of the time based on a numerous number of different market and economic scenarios.

These are the key findings of the Rice Warner’s research paper: Lifecycle Design – To and Through Retirement.

Lifecycle Funds, also referred to as Glide Path Funds, Target Date Funds, or Lifestages Funds, reduce the equity allocation in favour of more conservative investments, fixed interest and cash, as the investor approaches retirement.

 

Rice Warner found that somebody aged 30 with an opening balance of $26,000 and invested in a Multifactor Lifecycle Fund had a 91.8% chance of outperforming a Balanced Fund by the time of retirement at age 63.

Their research also found that by investing in a Multifactor Lifecycle Fund the expected retirement income is up to 35% higher than that expected from a Balanced Fund (Source: Australian AFR The product that can boost super by 35pc).

For somebody aged 60 with an account balance of $118,300, a Multifactor Lifecycle Fund had a 72.4 per cent chance of outperforming a Balanced Fund.

Lastly, Second Generation Lifecycle Funds, which reduce their growth allocation later, outperformed a Balanced Fund 91.2% of the time. A Multifactor Lifecycle Fund outperforms a Second Generation Lifecycle Fund 84.6% of the time.

 

A key conclusion from the Rice Warner research is that Lifecycle strategies that use factors in addition to age, such as superannuation account balance size, provide the ability to better tailor a portfolio to enhance outcomes for those saving for retirement. Therefore, they often outperform other investment strategies.

 

They achieve this by adopting a more growth-oriented stance while an investor has a long investment horizon and shifting to defensive assets when the investor’s investment horizon grows short.

Importantly, an individual’s investment horizon is a function of not only age but also the size of their superannuation account. This is an important concept, the rationale is provided in the section below – The Benefits of a Multifactor Lifecycle Fund.

 

A summary of the Rice Warner analysis is provided below, along with key Conclusions and Implications for those aged 30 and 60.

A copy of the Rice Warner analysis can be found here.

 

To my mind, there is going to be an increased customisation of investment solutions available for those saving for retirement that will consider factors beyond age e.g. account size, salary, and assets outside of Super.  Some are available already.

Technology will enable this, Microsoft and BlackRock are well advanced in collaborating, BlackRock and Microsoft want to make retirement investing as easy as ordering an Uber.

 

In relation to Lifecycle Funds, they are subject to wide spread criticism.

Some of this criticism is warranted, nevertheless, often the criticism is the result of the poor design of the Fund itself, rather than concept of a Lifecycle Fund itself. This is highlighted in the Rice Warner research, where the first Generation of Lifecycle Funds de-risk to early.

I covered the criticism of Lifecycle Funds in a previous Post, in the defence of Lifecycle Funds.

 

Lifecycle Funds can be improved upon. For example a more sophisticated approach to the management of the Cash and Fixed Interest allocation, this is well documented by the research undertaken by Dimensional Funds Advisors which I covered in a previous Post.

 

In my opinion, all investments strategies would benefit from a greater focus on tangible investment goals, this will lead to a more robust investment solution.

A Goals based investing approach is more robust than the application of “rule of thumbs”, such as the 4% rule and adjusting the growth allocation based purely as a function of age.

Goals based investing approaches provide a better framework in which to assess the risk of not meeting your retirement goals.

Greater levels of customisation are required, which is more relevant in the current investment environment.

 

 

Rice Warner – The benefits of Multifactor Lifecycle Funds

Investment literature indicates that an investor’s investment horizon is a key determinant of an appropriate investment strategy.

The consequence of longer investment horizons allows an investor to take on more risk because even if there is a severe market decline there is time to recover the losses.

Furthermore, and an important observation, Rice Warner’s analysis suggests that as we enter retirement investment horizon is a function of age and size of the superannuation account balance.

A retiree with a larger account balance has in effect a longer investment horizon. They are in a better position to weather any market volatility.

This reflects, that those with a small account size typically withdraw a greater proportion of their total assets each year, indicative of largely fixed minimum cost of living, resulting in a shorter investment horizon.

 

A very big implication of this analysis is that an investor’s investment horizon is “not bounded by the date that they choose to retire (though this point is relevant). This is as a member is likely to hold a substantial proportion of their superannuation well into the retirement phase, unless their balance is low.”

“One consequence of this is that investment strategies which consider this retirement investment horizon may deliver better outcomes for members – both to and through retirement. This is because as a member’s account balance grows, sequencing risk becomes less relevant allowing higher allocations to growth assets.”

For those wanting a better understanding of sequencing risk, please see my earlier Post.

 

Rice Warner conclude, Lifecycle strategies that use factors in addition to age, such as superannuation account balance size, provide the ability to better tailor a portfolio to provide enhanced outcomes for those saving for retirement. Therefore, they often outperform other investment strategies.

Thus, the title of their research Paper, Lifecycle Design – To and Through Retirement, more often than not investors should still hold a relatively high allocation to growth assets in retirement.  They should be held to the day of retirement and throughout retirement.

The research clearly supports this, a higher growth asset allocations should be held to and through retirement.  In my mind this is going to be an increasingly topically issue given the current market environment.

 

 

Rice Warner Analysis

Rice Warner considered several investment strategies applied to various hypothetical members throughout their lifetime.

They assess the distribution of outcomes of the investment strategies to establish whether adjustments can be made to provide members with better outcomes overtime.

Rice Warner considered:

  1. Balanced Strategy which adopts a fixed 70% allocation to Growth assets.
  2. High Growth strategy which adopts a fixed 85% allocation to Growth assets.
  3. First-generation Lifecycle (Lifecycle 1 (Age)) with a focus on defensive assets and de-risking at young ages.
  4. Second-generation Lifecycle (Lifecycle 2 (Age)) with a focus on growth assets and de-risking at older ages.
  5. Multi-dimensional Lifecycle (Lifecycle (Age and Balance)) which adopts a high allocation to growth assets unless a member is at an advanced age and has a low balance.

Six member profiles selected to capture low, moderate, and high wealth members at ages 30 and 60.

Rice Warner then considered the distribution of expected lifetime income under a range of investment scenarios using a stochastic model.

This allowed for a comparison of the income provided to members under each strategy in a range of investment situations for comparative purposes.

 

Conclusions

Rice Warner Conclude:

  • Investment horizon is a critical driver in setting an appropriate investment strategy. Investment strategies should take into consideration a range of investment horizon, both before and after retirement.
  • Adopting high allocations to growth assets is not inherently a poor strategy, even in cases where members are approaching retirement. These portfolios will typically provide:
    • Improved outcomes in cases where members are young, or investment performance is strong;
    • Marginally weaker outcomes where members are older and investment performance is weak.
  • Second-generation Lifecycle investment strategies (focused on growth assets and late de-risking) will typically outperform first generation strategies (which are focused on defensive assets and de-risking when a member is young).
  • Growth-oriented constant strategies will typically outperform First-generation Lifecycle strategies, except where investment performance is poor.
  • Designing Lifecycle strategies that use further factors in addition to age (such as balance) provide the ability to better tailor a portfolio to provide enhanced outcomes by:
    • Adopting a more growth-oriented stance while a member has a long investment horizon.
    • Shifting to defensive assets when a member’s investment horizon grows short.

 

Implications

Overall the results, aged 30:

  • High Growth strategies can provide significant scope for outperformance with minimal risk of underperformance relative to a Balanced Fund due to the members’ long investment horizon.
  • First-generation Lifecycle strategies will typically underperform each of the other strategies considered except where investment outcomes are poor for a protracted period. This underperformance is a result of the defensive allocation of these strategies being compounded over the member’s long investment horizon.
  • Second-generation Lifecycle can mitigate the risk faced by the members over their lifetime, albeit at the cost of a reduced expected return on their portfolio relative to a portfolio with a higher constant allocation to growth assets.
  • Lifecycle strategies which adjust based on multiple factors are able to manage the risk and return trade-off inherent to investments in a more effective way than single strategies or Lifecycle strategies only based on age. This is a result of the increased tailoring allowing the portfolio to adopt a more aggressive stance when members are young and thereby accumulate a high balance and extend their investment horizon further. This leads to this portfolio often outperforming the other strategies considered.

 

For those aged 60

  • High Growth strategies can provide significant outperformance in strong investment conditions. This comes at the cost of a modest level of underperformance in a poor investment scenario (a reduction in total lifetime income for members ranging between 2% and 5% relative to a Balanced fund).
  • First-generation Lifecycle strategies will underperform in neutral or strong market conditions due to their lack of growth assets. In cases where investment performance is poor these strategies outperform the other strategies considered particularly for those with low levels of wealth (due to their short investment horizons).
  • Two-dimensional Lifecycles provide enhanced risk management (but not necessarily better expected performance) by providing:
    • Protection for members who are vulnerable to sequencing risk with short investment horizons (low and moderate wealth profiles) by adopting a Balanced stance.
    • High allocations to growth for members whose investment horizon is long (high wealth profiles).

 

Good luck, stay healthy and safe.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

More needs to be done to address the 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.

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.

Charitable Foundation Investing, with Endowments

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.

 

A short history of Portfolio Diversification

Advancements in technology and new knowledge have made it easier to diversify portfolios and manage investment management fees. Greater clarity over sources of returns have placed downward pressure on active manager’s fees.  True sources of portfolio diversification can command a higher fee and are worth considering.

Is your portfolio managed as if it is the 1980s? the 1990s? Does it include any of the key learnings from the Tech Bubble crash of 2000 and the market meltdown of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC or Great Recession)?

Finally, is your portfolio positioned for future trends in portfolio management?

 

Below I provide a short history of the evolution of portfolio diversification. The evolution of portfolio diversification is interesting and can be referenced to determine how advanced your portfolio is.

 

The framework, idea, and some of the material comes from a very well written article by Aberdeen Standard Investments (ASI).

Unless stated otherwise, the opinions and comments below are mine.

 

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Nobel Laureate and pioneer of investment theory Harry Markowitz’s 1952 paper “Portfolio Selection” provided the foundations for Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).

Markowitz’s analysis provided the mathematical underpinnings for portfolio optimisation.

The key contribution of Markowitz was the quantification of portfolio “risk”. Portfolio Risk was measured by the variation in investment returns – standard deviation of returns.

Markowitz’s paper led to the concept of an “optimal portfolio”, a framework in which both risk and returns are considered. Optimal portfolios offer the maximum expected return for a defined level of risk.

The benefits of diversification were clear to see. Diversification reduces risk without sacrificing returns.

As the ASI article noted: Markowitz called diversification “the only free lunch in finance”.

MPT led to the establishment of the 60:40 portfolio, a portfolio of 60% equities and 40% fixed income.

Increased Diversification of the 60:40 Portfolio

The 60:40 portfolio dominated for a long period time. This portfolio was also largely domestically orientated i.e. the concept of investing internationally was not widely practiced in the 1960 – 70s, even early 1980s.

The next phase in portfolio diversification largely focused on increasing the level of diversification within the equity and fixed income components of 60:40 Portfolio.

As outlined in the ASI paper, four trends combined to drive a broadening of investments in 1980s and 90s:

  • deregulation of financial markets
  • rapid growth in emerging markets
  • financial innovation
  • academic ‘discoveries’.

Deregulation played a major role, particularly the ending of fixed currency exchange rates and the relaxing of capital controls. This enabled an increased level of investing internationally.

This also coincided with the discovery of the “emerging markets”, leading to an increased allocation to emerging market equities and fixed income securities.

Financial innovation resulted in the development of several new financial instruments, including mortgage-backed securities, high-yield bonds (formally called Junk Bonds), and leverage loans.

The use of derivatives also grew rapidly following the establishment of Option Pricing Theory.

Other academic discoveries led to style investing, such as value and growth, and the rise of investing into smaller companies to add value and increase diversification.  Style investing has been superseded by factor investing, which is discussed further below.

ASI conclude, that at the end 1990’s portfolio diversification could be characterised as including:

  • domestic and international equities
  • value and growth stocks
  • large-cap and small-cap stocks
  • developed and emerging markets
  • government, mortgage and corporate fixed income securities.

 

Fundamentally, this is still a portfolio of equities and bonds. Nevertheless, compared to the domestic two-asset class 60:40 Portfolio of the 1960 – 70s it offered more diversification and weathered the severe market declines of tech bubble burst in 2000 and GFC better.

Pioneering Portfolio Management – the Yale Endowment Model

The 2000’s witnessed the emergence of the “Endowment Model”. This followed a period of strong performance and evidence of their diversification benefits during the tech bubble burst of 1999-2000.

The Endowment model has been characterised as being based on four core principles: equity bias, diversification, use of less-liquid or complex assets, and value-based investing.

Endowments allocate the largest percentages of their portfolios to alternative asset classes like hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, and real assets e.g. property.

The endowment model was pioneered by David Swensen at Yale University. Yale’s alternative assets fell into three categories: absolute return (or hedge funds); real assets (or property and natural resources); and private equity.

For more on diversification approach adopted by Endowments and Sovereign Wealth Funds please see my previous Post Investment Fees and Investing like and Endowment – Part 2.

Learnings from Norway

The extreme severity the GFC tested all portfolios, including the Endowment Model.

The dislocation in markets muted the benefits of diversification from alternative investments and left many questioning the actual level of diversification within their portfolio.

In 2009 this disappointment prompted the Norwegian Government Pension fund to commission a study to investigate their returns during the GFC.

The study was undertaken by three prominent professors, Andrew Ang (Columbia Business School), William Goetzmann (Yale University) and Stephen Schaefer (London Business School). The paper is well worth reading.

This study went on to influence portfolio diversification considerations and captures some major learnings from the GFC. The study brought factor investing into greater prominence.

Factors are the underlying drivers of investment returns.  The Nordic study recommended that factor related returns should take centre stage in an investment process.

As a result, the Norwegians rethought about how they structured their portfolios. Other countries have followed, incorporating factor investing into their asset allocations.

Please see my previous Post on Factor Investing and this interview with Andrew Ang, one of the authors of Nordic study, for further details.

Innovation and pressure on Investment Management Fees

The period since the GFC has yielded an increasing level of innovation. This innovation has been driven in part by factor investing, technology advancements, pressure on reducing investment management fees, and increased demand to access more liquid alternative investment strategies to further diversify portfolios.

The disaggregation of investment turns has provided a new lens in which to view portfolio diversification. With technology advancements and the rise of factor investing returns from within markets have been isolated. Broadly speaking, investment returns can be attributed to: market exposures (beta e.g. sharemarkets); underlying factors (e.g. value and momentum); hedge fund strategy returns (e.g. relative value and merger arbitrage); and returns purely attributable to manager skill (called alpha, what is left if the previous sources cannot explain all the return outcome). For a fuller discussion please see my earlier Post on Disaggregation of Investment Returns.

These trends have resulted in the proliferation of ETFs and the downward pressure on investment management fees. The active manager has been squeezed, with investors only wanting to pay fees relative to the source of return i.e. very very low fees for beta and higher fees for alpha.

These developments have also resulted in the rise of liquid alternatives. Returns once attributed to hedge funds can now be more easily accessed, from a cost and liquid perspective.

Increasingly these strategies are available in an Exchange Trade Fund (ETF) structure.

True Portfolio Diversification

Consequently, there is a now a greater ability to significantly diversify the portfolios of the 1980s and 1990s and take on the learnings from GFC and 2000 Tech bubble.

Increasingly Institutional investors accept that portfolio diversification does not come from investing in more and more asset classes. This has diminishing diversification benefits e.g. adding global listed property or listed liquid infrastructure to a multi-asset portfolio that includes global equities.   True portfolio diversification is achieved by investing in different risk factors that drive the asset classes e.g. duration, economic growth, low volatility, value, and growth. Investors are compensated for being exposed to a range of different risks.

True diversification involves taking the learnings from the endowment model and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund study.

As a result, 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.  This Post highlights that more asset classes does not equal more diversification may also be of interest.

Goal Based Investing and the extinction of the 60:40 Portfolio

Advancements in technology have helped investors understand the different dimensions of risk better and move away from the sole risk measure of MPT (standard deviation of returns).

Likewise, there has been a growing appreciation that failure to meet your investment objectives is the greatest investment risk.

More advanced portfolio construction approaches such as Liability Driven Investing (LDI) have been embraced.

Goal-Based Investing for the individual is based on the concepts of LDI.

The move toward Goal-Based Investing completely upturns portfolio construction, likely resulting in the extinction of the 60:40 Portfolio.

This paradigm shift within the industry is best captured by analysis undertaken by EDHEC Risk Institute.  I covered the most relevant EDHEC article in more depth recently for those wanting more information. This Post outlines future trends in Wealth Management.

Future Direction of Diversification

The ASI article finishes by discussing several trends they believe are reshaping portfolio construction. Some of these trends have been discussed on Kiwiinvestorblog.

I would like to highlight the following trends identified by ASI:

  1. Investors continue to shift from traditional to alternative assets, see the recent Prequin Post.
  2. Investors are increasingly integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) analysis into their decision-making process.
  3. Opportunities to invest in emerging markets are increasing.
  4. Individuals have to take more responsibility for their financial futures. This is known as the Financial Climate Change.

 

As ASI conclude “If done well, diversification can lead to improved long-term returns delivered in a smoother fashion.”

I would also add, and it is worth reflecting upon, although the benefits of diversification are without question, Modern Portfolio Theory of the 1950s can hardly be considered modern.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

Kiwi Investor Blog achieves 100 not out

Kiwi Investor Blog achieves 100 Posts.

Thank you to those who have provided support, encouragement and feedback. It has been greatly appreciated.

 

Before I briefly outline some of the key topics covered to date by Kiwiinvestorblog.com, the “intellectual framework” for the Blog has largely come from EDHEC Risk Institute in relation to Goals-Based investing and how to improve the outcomes of Target Date Funds in providing a more robust investment solution.

Likewise, Noble Laureate Professor Robert Merton’s perspective on designing an appropriate retirement system has been influential. Regulators and retirement solution providers should take note of his and EDHEC’s work.

Combined, EDHEC and Professor Merton, are helping to make finance useful again.

Their analysis into more robust retirement solutions have the potential to deliver real welfare benefits for the many people that face a challenging retirement environment.

A Goals-Based approach also helps the super wealthy and the High Net worth in achieving their investment and hopefully philanthropic goals, resulting in the efficient allocation of capital.

The investment knowledge is available now to achieve this.

 

To summaries, the key topics of Kiwi investor blog:

 

  • Likewise, much ink has been spilt over Target Date Funds. I believe these are the vehicle to achieving the mass production of the customised investment solution. Furthermore, they are likely to be the solution to the KiwiSaver Default option. The current generation have many shortcomings and would benefit by the implementation of more advanced investment approaches such as Liability Driven Investing. This analysis highlights that Target Date Funds that are 100% invested in cash at time of retirement are scandalous.

 

 

  • The first kiwiinvestorblog Post was an article by EDHEC Risk Institute outlining the paradigm shift developing within the wealth management industry, including the death of the Policy Portfolio, the move toward Goals-Based Investing and the mass production of customised investment solutions. These themes have been developed upon within the Blog over the last 22 months.

I covered the EDHEC article in more depth recently.

 

 

  • The mass production of customised investment solutions has been a recurrent topic. Mass customisation enabled by technology will be the Uber Moment for the wealth management industry. Therefore, the development of BlackRock and Microsoft collaborating will be worth following.

 

 

 

  • Several Posts have been on Responsible Investing. I am in the process of writing a series of articles on Responsible Investing. The next will be on Impact Investing. The key concern, as a researcher, is identifying those managers that don’t Greenwash their investment approach and as a practitioner seeing consistency in terminology.  The evidence for Responsible Investing is compelling and there is a wide spectrum of approaches.

 

 

  • There has been a focus on the issues faced by those near or in Retirement, such as the Retirement Planning Death Zone. These discussions have led to conclusion that Warren Buffet could be wrong in recommending high allocations to a low cost index funds. Investment returns are greatly impacted by cashflows into and out of the retirement fund.

 

  • I don’t tend to Post around current market conditions; market views and analysis are readily available. I will cover a major market development, more to provide some historical context, for example the anatomy of sharemarket corrections, the interplay between economic recession and sharemarket returns, and lastly, I first covered the topic of inverted yield curves in 2018.  I provided an update more recently, Recessions, inverted yield curves, and Sharemarket returns.

 

My word for 2019 is Flexicure, as outlined in my last Post of 2018, Flexicurity in Retirement Income Solutions – making finance great again – which brings together many of the key topics outlined above.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

 

Designing a new Retirement System and Goal-Based Wealth Management

This Post covers an article by Nobel Laureate Professor Robert Merton: Funding Retirement: Next Generation Design, which was written in 2012.

It is a relatively long but easy article to read, very entertaining, he is a wonderful conversationalist with some great analogies.

It should be read by all, particularly those interested in developing a robust Retirement System.

The concepts underlie a move globally to the development of more innovative investment solutions to meet a growing need from those in retirement.

I have tried to summarise his concepts below, probably without full justice.

 

Before we begin, it is important to emphasis, what Professor Merton has in mind is a retirement system that supports a mass produced and truly customised investment solution.

This is not a hypothetical investment strategy/approach he is advancing, cooked up in a laboratory, investment strategies are already in place in Europe and the United States based on the concepts outlined in his article.

These concepts are consistent with the work by the EDHEC Risk Institute in building more robust retirement income solutions. The performance of these solutions and those provided by the likes of BlackRock can be tracked by the indices they produce.

The behavioural finance aspects of these approaches are outlined in a previous Post.

Merton begins

Due to excessive complexity in investment choices and a focus on the wrong goals, hundreds of millions of low- to middle-income earners face a precipitous decline in their living standards upon their departure from the workforce.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Technology, innovation and our understanding of what are meaningful choices about retirement funding mean we are now in a position to design a better system that serves all people, not just the wealthiest ones.

 

And he concludes:

In designing a new retirement system, Merton argues first we need to define the goal. He defines the goal as helping participants achieve income throughout retirement, adjusted to keep pace with inflation.

Merton notes, the current system is no longer sustainable and requires individuals to make overly complex investment decisions and the industry bombards them with jargon that is meaningless to them.

Therefore, he argues strongly we should move away from the goal of amassing a lump sum at the time of retirement to one of achieving a retirement income for life.

This requires customisation of the investment strategy. Asset allocation strategies should be personalised. And, each individual is given regular updates on how “they” are travelling in ways that make sense to them.

However, unlike simple target-date funds that mechanically set the asset allocation using a crude calculation based on a single variable — the participant’s age — Merton proposes a customised, dynamically managed solution based on each participant’s tailored goals for desired outcomes, life situation, expected future contributions and other retirement-dedicated assets, including current savings accumulated, and any other retirement Benefit entitlements.

To improve effectiveness of engagement of the Participant, all of the complexity of the investment strategy is kept under the bonnet, out of sight. The user is asked a series of simple questions around their essential and their desired income targets. Once they achieve a very strong likelihood (more than 96 per cent) of reaching that desired income, they lock in an asset allocation to match that desired lifetime income at retirement.

Merton concludes, this is not a hypothetical investment strategy/approach. Such strategies are currently being implemented in Europe and the United States.

And, it begins and ends with turning the focus back onto what superannuation should be about — ensuring people have adequate incomes in retirement.

 

Therefore, the investment strategy is focused entirely on achieving the retirement income goal, no consideration is given to achieving more than that goal.  Such a strategy limits the downside and upside relative to the investment objects – narrowing the variation of likely outcomes relative to a desired level of income in retirement.

Therefore, it increases the probability of reaching a desired level of income in retirement.

 

 

Now to the Body of the Article:

Background

Merton identifies the shortcomings of the current retirement system, particularly the shift from Defined Benefit (DB) to Define Contribution (DC) has burdened the users with having to make complex decisions about issues in which they have no knowledge or expertise.

The current system is far from ideal.

Therefore, in considering how to reshape the system, Merton argues we should start by establishing the goal.

What are members seeking to achieve?

To his mind, people “want an inflation adjusted level of funding that allows them to sustain the standard of living in retirement that they have grown accustomed to in the final years of their working lives.”

Merton then asks: How do we define a standard of living in financial terms?

Traditionally this has been a sufficiently large lump sum. “Indeed, that is the premise of most DC plans, including most in the Australian superannuation system. The focus is on amassing a sufficiently large lump sum in the accumulation phase“.

However, “in reality, when talking about a standard of living, people think of income”.

For example a Government sponsored pension is described in terms of an annual/weekly payment. Likewise DB plans were expressed as income per year for life and not by its lump-sum value.

This is why DB plans were so attractive to the investor. The income was to be received and there were no complex decisions to be made.

Contrast this to the DC system, there is a mirror of products and investment decisions that need to be made and it is no wonder people sit in default funds and are not engaged.

 

Furthermore, over and above the complexity Merton notes: “most DC plan allocations take no account of individual circumstances, including human capital, housing and retirement dedicated assets held outside the DC plan. Those are all important inputs for an allocation decision customised to the needs of each person.”

Therefore, he argues the next generation of retirement solutions need to meet the following criteria:

  • To be robust, scalable, low-cost investment strategies that make efficient use of all dedicated retirement assets to maximise the chance of achieving the retirement income goal and manage the risk of not achieving it.
  • A risk-managed customised solution with individually tailored goals for each member — taking into account his or her age, salary, gender, accumulation plan and other assets dedicated to retirement.
  • A solution that is effective even for individuals who never provide information or who never become involved in the decision making process at all. And, for those who do become engaged, we need a solution that gives them meaningful information about how they are travelling and what they can do if they are not on track to achieve their retirement income goals.
  • Allows plan sponsors (or pension fund trustees) to control their costs and eliminate balance sheet risk.

 

Next-generation retirement planning

Merton argues: “The simplest retirement solution is one in which the members do absolutely nothing. They provide no information and make no decisions. In fact, they are not engaged in the process at all until they reach retirement.”

He acknowledges that such extreme behaviour is rare, nevertheless, a well-designed retirement solution would display such characteristics.

It has to be to a standard that when members do engage “(it) enhances the chances of success in achieving the desired income goal.”

 

But how is that achieved?

Investment solutions need to be designed based on questions that are meaningful for people, such as:

  • What standard of living do you desire in retirement?
  • What standard of living are you willing to accept?
  • What contribution or savings rate are you willing or able to make?

 

The key point of these questions: 

“Such questions embed the trade-off between consumption during work life and consumption in retirement and they make sense to people, unlike questions about asset allocation.”

Importantly the focus is not on what investments you should have or your “risk preference”, it is on what are your retirement goals.

 

The objective is to create a simple design with only a handful of relevant choices.

Merton also argues that “we need a design that does not change, at least in the way that users interact with it. An unchanging design leads to tools that people will be more likely to learn and use. In fact, a design that is unchanging is almost as important as a design that is simple.“

Something simple and consistent is easier for people to learn and remember than something complicated and changing.

 

A point made in the article, is that the design can be simple, but what is underneath can be complex. The underlying investment solution needs to flexible and innovative to improve performance over time. Not fixed, rigid, and independent of the changing market environments.

“We must, therefore, design a system that is user friendly, one that people can become familiar with and thus are willing to use — a system in which the designers do the heavy lifting, so users need only make lifestyle decisions that they understand and the system then translates into the investment actions needed to achieve those goals.”

 

 

Wealth versus sustainable income as the goal

The second dimension is the use of wealth as a measure of economic welfare.

Merton makes a strong case Income is what matters in retirement and not how big your pot of money is i.e. Lump sum, or accumulated wealth.

It is often said that if you have enough money you will get the income and everything will be fine. This may be true for the super wealthy but is not reality for many people facing the prospect of retirement.

By way of example: A New Zealander who retired in 2008 with a million dollars, would have been able to generate an annual income of $80k by investing in retail term deposits. Current income on a million dollars would be approximately $30k if they had remained invested in term deposits. That’s a big drop in income (-63%) and also does not take into account the erosion of buying power from inflation.  You would be a bit concerned if you lost 63% of your lump sum!

The point being, knowing you had a million dollars did not tell you about a lifestyle that could be supported in retirement.

Focusing on accumulated wealth does not distinguish between the standard of living and wealth as the objective.

As Merton says “Sustainable income flow, not the stock of wealth, is the objective that counts for retirement planning.”

 

Investment Reporting

Merton makes another, and important point, the reporting of Investment results to members is not trivial. Crucially what is reported to members by providers heavily influences behaviour e.g. volatility of capital as a measure of risk influences behaviour, often bad behaviour.

Therefore, the measure of risk is important.

From this perspective, in Merton’s mind reporting should focus on the level of income that will be generated in retirement. This is the most important measure. The volatility of likely income in retirement is a better measure risk.

And from this standpoint it is encouraging that KiwiSaver providers are required to include retirement savings and income projections in annual statements sent to KiwiSaver members from 2020 onwards.

 

Essential and desired income goals – Goals-Based Investing

The system Merton is describing “seeks to increase the likelihood of reaching nominated income goals by sacrificing the possibility of doing significantly better than desired”.

In effect he is seeking to narrow the likely outcomes, technically speaking the “distribution” of income outcomes in retirement.

We do this by focusing on desired and essential target income goals.

These goals are what the member would see as a good retirement income given their set of circumstances and on how much risk would be acceptable in achieving those goals.

The desired income goal would be defined as a level of income that while not guaranteed, has a very high probability of being achieved and which serves to indicate the degree of risk of the member’s strategy.

Therefore, the investment objective is to maximise the estimated probability of achieving a desired level of income in retirement.

Accordingly, as the probability of reaching the desired level of income in retirement rises risk is reduced so as to “lock in” the chances of achieving the goal at retirement.

As Merton notes “by taking as much risk as possible off the table when it is no longer needed, we are trading off the possibility of achieving ‘even more’ against increasing materially the probability of achieving the goal.”

In this way, the investment strategy is focused entirely on achieving the retirement income goal, no consideration is given to achieving more than that goal.

Such a strategy limits the downside and upside relative to the investment objects – narrows the variation of likely outcomes relative to the desired level of income in retirement.

Therefore, it increases the probability of reaching desired level of income in retirement, particularly relative to a less focussed investment strategy.

 

Pension Alerts

Merton recommends that should a Member’s progress suggest they have a less that say 50% probability of reaching their retirement income goal they are contacted.

At which point in time they have three options:

  1. increase their monthly contributions;
  2. raise their retirement age; and/or
  3. take more risk.

The Member gets these alerts during the accumulation phase. This can be formal systematic process under which the plan sponsor and trustees, as part of their fiduciary responsibilities, seek to guide that member to a good retirement outcome.

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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