New Zealand Super Fund vs the Australian Future Fund

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

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

A light-hearted approach is taken.

 

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

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

Let’s gets stuck into the Test Match Statistics.

 

Test Match in Play

 

NZS

Future Fund

Kiwi vs Aussie Difference

Int’l Equities

56.0%

18.5%

37.5%

Emerging Markets

11.0%

10.0%

Domestic Equities

4.0%

7.0%

Fixed Income

9.0%

9.0%

Alternatives
Infrastructure & Timberland

7.0%

7.5%

-0.5%

Property

2.0%

6.7%

-4.7%

PE

5.0%

15.8%

-10.8%

Alternatives 13.5%

-13.5%

Rural

1.0%

Private Mkts

3.0%

Public Mkts

2.0%

Cash

11.9%

100%

100%

           
High Level Allocations          
Equities

71.0%

35.5%

35.5%

Fixed Income

9.0%

9.0%

0.0%

Cash

11.9%

-11.9%

Alternatives

20.0%

43.5%

-23.5%

100%

100%

 

High Level Match Coverage:

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

 

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

 

As for the detail

  New Zealand Australia
Infrastructure & Timberlands

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

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

 

The Kiwis also have allocations to Merger Arbitrage.

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

 

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

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

 

Post-Match interviews

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Why the Difference

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

 

Investment Objectives

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

 

Return Objectives

Interestingly they have similar return objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

This is an issue of implementation.

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

 

Drawdown Requirements

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

The Kiwis have a bit longer until they enter retirement.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Team Philosophy

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

 

Resources and fee budgets

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

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

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

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

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

What does Portfolio Diversification look like?

What does a diversified portfolio look like?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Comparison Return Analysis

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

 

The Retirement Planning Death Zone

The retirement risk zone (also known as the ‘conversion’ phase) is commonly defined as the final 10 years of working life (the ‘accumulation’ phase) and the first 10 years of retirement (the pay-out phase or decumulation).

This period is right before and right after you retire.

Importantly, it is this 20 year period when the greatest amount of retirement savings is in play and, subsequently, risk is at its highest.

 

This can be thought of along the lines of the death zone when climbing Mt Everest. The risky time is the final ascent, clambering over the Hillary Step, on the way to the summit of Mt Everest. However, once at the summit risks remain on the decent and until below the death zone when the ability to breathe becomes easier.

The summit in terms of retirement savings is generally reached at age 65, this is when the amount saved will be the “peak” in savings accumulated. It is here when accumulated wealth is at its largest.  Albeit, from an investment perspective, risks remain heightened over the first 10 years of the pay-out/decumulation phase.

 

The Retirement Risk Zone, the 10 years either side of retirement, is the worst possible time to experience a large negative return given this is when the greatness amount of money is at stake. Risks to portfolios are heightened at this stage.

It is a very important period for retirement planning.

 

During the Retirement Risk Zone two factors can potentially combine to have a detrimental impact on the standard of living in retirement:

  1. The portfolio size effect (what you do when the largest amount of your money is at risk matters); and
  2. the problem of sequencing risk (how much you lose during a bear market (20% or more fall in value of sharemarkets) may not be anywhere near as important as the timing of the loss, again, especially during the Retirement Risk Zone).

 

To explain, sequencing risk, is the risk that the order of investment returns are unfavourable, resulting in less money for retirement.

Sequencing risk impacts pre-and post-retirement i.e. the retirement risk zone.

 

Cashflows, investments in and withdrawals out of the retirement savings plan, add another dimension to sequencing risk.

Sequencing Risk can be viewed as the interaction of market volatility and cashflows. The timing of returns and cashflows matters during both the accumulation of retirement savings and in retirement. This impacts on longevity risk.

This is where Warren Buffet could be wrong in recommending people maintain high equity allocations for the longer term. As noted in my previous Post, Could Buffet be Wrong? “once an investor needs to take capital or income from a portfolio volatility of the equity markets can wreak havoc on a Portfolio’s value, and ultimately the ability of a portfolio to meet its investment objectives”. This is sequencing risk at play for those planning for retirement. This is also why many US Endowments do not hold large equity allocations.

It is untrue to say that volatility does not matter for the long term when cashflows are involved.

A brief explanation of interplay between the timing of returns and cashflows is provided below.

 

Longevity Risk

The portfolio size effect and sequencing risk have a direct relationship to longevity risk.

For individuals, longevity risk is the risk of outliving ones’ assets, resulting in a lower standard of living, reduced care, or a return to employment.

Or put another way, longevity risk is the likelihood that superannuation savings will be depleted prior to satisfying the lifetime financial needs of the dependents of those savings.

One way longevity risk manifests itself is when an investor’s superannuation savings is subject to a major negative market event within the Retirement Risk Zone.

 

The point to take away: the size of your portfolio, order in which returns are experienced, and timing of cashflows into and out of the retirement savings account have an impact on accumulated wealth and ultimately standard of living in retirement.

The basic conclusions. First, it is better to suffer negative returns early in the accumulation phase.

Secondly, it is better to suffer negative returns later in retirement.

 

Materiality of Sequencing Risk

In short, the research finds that the sequence of returns materially impacts peak accumulated wealth (terminal wealth) and heightens the probability of running out of money in retirement (longevity risk).  The research backs up the two conclusions above.

The Griffith University research paper mentioned below “finds that sequencing risk can deplete terminal wealth by almost a quarter, at the same time increasing the probability of portfolio ruin at age 85 from a probability of one-in three, to one-in-two.“

Terminal wealth is “peak” accumulated savings in our Mt Everest example above.

Based on their extensive modelling, investors have a 33.3% chance of not having enough money to last to aged 85, this raises to a 50% chance due to a large negative return during the Retirement Risk Zone.

They also note “It is our conjecture that, for someone in their 20s, the impact of sequencing risk is minimal: younger investors have small account balances, and plenty of time to recover …… However, for someone in their late 50s/early 60s, the interplay between portfolio size and sequencing risk can cause a potentially catastrophic financial loss that has serious consequences for individuals, families and broader society.”

This is consistent with other international studies.

 

For those wanting a more technical read please see the papers that have been drawn upon for this Post:

  1. Griffith University = The Retirement Risk Zone: A Baseline Study poorly-timed negative return event
  2. Retirement income and the sequence of-returns By: Moshe A. Milevsky, Ph.D., and Anna Abaimova, for MetLife

 

Managing Sequencing Risk

The combination of the portfolio size effect, sequencing risk, and longevity risk combine to form a trinity of investment issues that need to be managed inside the Retirement Risk Zone.

Mitigation of sequencing risk is critical across the retirement risk zone.

Sequencing risk is largely a retirement planning issue. Albeit a more robust portfolio and a suitably appropriate investment approach to investing will help mitigate the impact of sequencing risk:

  1. A greater focus on generating retirement income earlier

In my mind, a greater focus should be placed on positioning retirement portfolios for generating income in retirement at the later stages of the retirement accumulation phase i.e. at least 10-15 years out from retirement.

This is achieved by using asset-liability matching techniques as recommended by the OECD. This is not just about increasing the cash and fixed income allocations within the portfolio but implementing more advanced funds management techniques to position the portfolio to deliver a more stable level of income in retirement.

The investment knowledge is available now to achieve this and these techniques can improve the outcomes of Target Date Funds.

This is also consistent with the OECD’s Core Principles of Private Pension Regulation that emphasised that the objective is to generate retirement income.

The central point is, without a greater focus on generating Income in retirement during the accumulation phase the variation of income in retirement will likely be higher.

Therefore, it is important to have coherency between the accumulation and pay-out phase of retirement as recommended by the OECD.

 

I have highlighted the OECD recommendations in a previous Post.

 

2. A greater focus on reducing downside risk in a portfolio

This is beyond just reducing the equity allocation within the retirement portfolio on approaching retirement, albeit this is fundamentally important in most cases.

From this perspective Target Date Funds would be an appropriate default option for KiwiSaver, as I have previously outlined.

A more robust portfolio must also display true portfolio diversification, that helps manage downside risk i.e. reduce degree of losses within a portfolio.

This includes the inclusion of alternative investments. Portfolios should be built more like US endowments as I outlined in a previous Post.

An allocation to Alternatives have also been shown to improve the investment outcomes of Target Date Funds.

The inclusion of low volatility equities may also be option.

 

The article from Forbes is of interest in managing sequence of returns in retirement, and recommends amongst other things in having some flexibility around spending, maintaining reserve assets so you don’t have to sell assets after they fall in value, and the use of Annuities.

Many argue that sequencing risk can be managed by Product use alone.

 

My preference is for a robust portfolio, truly diversified that is based on the principles of Goals-Based Investing, and is therefore using asset-liability matching type strategies.  I would complement the Goals-Based approach with longevity annuities so as to manage longevity risk.   This is more aligned with a Robust Investment solution and the focus on generating retirement income as the essential investment goal.

 

Sequencing risk is currently a growing and present danger given it has been a long time since both the US and New Zealand sharemarkets have incurred a major fall in value. Hopefully, sequencing risk is getting some consideration in investment decisions being made today.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

Background – Understanding Impact of returns and Cashflows

It is hard to believe, but two investors might both experience “average” returns of 8 per cent over a 20-year period and yet have materially different balances due to sequencing risk.

The 20-year periods would occur at different times, yet the “average” return is the same.

Nevertheless, the sequence of returns to generate an “average” return over the 20 year periods can result in different accumulated wealth.

This reflects there is a difference between time weighted returns and dollar invested returns. The time weighted return assumes you held the same investment over the time period. A dollar weighted return takes into consideration that money goes in and comes out of a savings account and each dollar earns a different return given the period it is invested for.  Dollar weighted returns impact on accumulated wealth.

Although the sequence of returns is crucial, so too are the timing of Cashflows into (deposits) and out (withdrawals) of a savings account.

To appreciate this, it is important to understand the impact of market volatility, it is hard to recover a dollar lost from a negative market movement. For example, if your portfolio falls in value by 40%, it’s takes a 67% return to recover your loses e.g. you have $100, this falls in value by 40%, wealth falls to $60, to get back to $100, the portfolio must recover 67%.

When there are cashflows not every dollar will experience the same return e.g. a dollar withdrawn after a 50% fall will miss out on any subsequent recovery in market prices, which can take up to six to ten years.

Therefore, the introduction of cashflows can also result in different outcomes for investors. This is why the pulling of funds out of markets following a large fall (draw-down) early in the accumulation phase can have a detrimental impact on accumulated wealth at the time of retirement.

The sequence of returns and cashflows matters during both the accumulation of retirement savings and in retirement.

During accumulation cashflows are going into the savings account and the account balance is growing. Therefore, each dollar invested has a different investment return.

In retirement, cashflows coming out of the portfolio will gradually reduce the capital base, therefore, investors will be better off if returns are stronger at the start of retirement, as the account balance will be larger and growing, meaning cashflows out will not reduce the capital base as much when returns are poorer in the earlier years of retirement.

For those wanting a more technical explanation, along with some great charts and graphs, this article by Challanger will be of real value.