The Traditional Diversified Fund is outdated – greater customisation of the client’s investment solution is required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

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.

 

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.

 

 

Turning Savings into income – How much Income can your savings Generate?

Most retirement calculators project your “nest egg” (or your lump-sum savings).

However, increasingly the focus is more on the goal that really matters: whether your current savings can provide you with the annual “paycheck” you want in retirement.

 

It is possible to estimate how much your current savings will generate as an annual lifetime income. Conversely, it is possible to calculate how much is needed to be saved (Wealth) to reach a certain level of annual lifetime income when turning 65. These calculations can be undertaken for a range of ages e.g. from 55 to 74.

 

Traditionally saving for retirement means saving as much as you can (lump-sum) and trying to make your savings last a lifetime.

Yet, the biggest question, and one of the hardest to answer, has been what level of retirement income will my lump sum deliver over my retirement?

A good estimate to this question can be determined.

 

For example, there are number of Indices that can calculate the estimated lifetime annual income given someone’s age and size of nest-egg.

These Indices are better than vague rules of thumb, they are not magic, it’s just math.

More importantly, they are practical and the underlying investment strategy can be easily implemented.

 

Although these Indices are for US based investors, they are worth understanding given the underlying concepts and approaches.

Following these concepts and approaches will enhance the likelihood of reaching a desired standard of living in retirement.

Hopefully such indices/calculations will be more readily available for New Zealand investors in time.

 

Such indices are widely available overseas. By way of example are the BlackRock CoRI and EDHEC-Princeton Retirement Goal Price Index series.

Both of these Indices aim to help investors estimate how much their current savings will generate in annual lifetime income when they turn 65.

EDHEC-Princeton have also developed an Index that measures the performance of a portfolio invested in a goal-based investment strategy, Goal-Based Investing Index Series (See below).

 

By using these Indices, a quick and simple calculation can be undertaken to understand how much retirement income a lump-sum will likely generate.

Therefore, they are a great tool to start a conversation with your financial advisor i.e. discuss any changes you may need to make in your savings or investment strategy to help meet your retirement income goals.

How these Indices work is outlined below.

 

In closing, 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.

This is a good start. The investment knowledge is available now to deliver a stable and almost secure level of income in retirement. Such investment strategies are aligned with the KiwiSaver income projection initiative instigated by the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Regulations.

The OECD encourages the retirement objective is to be the generation of income in retirement and for there to be coherency between the accumulation and pay-out phase of retirement.

Currently most investment products are poorly positioned to meet these objectives.

Therefore, the retirement investment solution needs be customised to the individual and there needs to be a greater focus on generating a sufficient and stable stream of replacement income in retirement.  A regular Pay-check!

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

 

BlackRock CoRI

Black Rock CoRI Indexes aim to help investors estimate how much their current savings will generate in annual lifetime income when they turn 65.

The CoRI Indexes are a series of age-based U.S Fixed Income indexes. Each CoRI Index seeks to track the estimated cost of annual retirement income beginning at age 65.

By way of example, if the Index Value is 23.47, a US investor aged 65, and have a US$1,000,000 nest-egg, would generate an estimated annual retirement income of US$42,608.

Estimations based on a range of ages can be undertaken.

Access to the CoRi calculations is here. Remember this is for a US is based Investor, but a quick use of the tool will display its power.

The calculations depend on a number of assumptions, including number of years until you reach age 65, current interest rates, life expectancy, and inflation expectations.

The calculations are similar to those relied on by sophisticated pension plans and insurers. They include cash-flow modelling and actuarial practices to estimate the cost of annual retirement income, coupled with liability-driven investment techniques, to build a fixed income portfolio.

Greater detail on the CoRi methodology is available here.

 

EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Index Series

The EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Index Series is a joint initiative of EDHEC-Risk Institute and the Operations Research and Financial Engineering (ORFE) Department of Princeton University.

Research efforts undertaken towards the design of more meaningful retirement solutions, with the support of Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management group, led to the design of the EDHEC-Princeton Retirement Goal-Based Investing Index Series.

Through the Indices they aim to promote the use of state-of-the-art goal-based investing principles in retirement investing.

“At the root of this initiative is the recognition that none of the existing “retirement products” provides a completely satisfying answer to the threefold need for security, flexibility and upside potential. Annuities offer security, but at the cost of fees and surrender charges. Target date funds have more moderate costs and they have growth potential, but they offer no guarantee in terms of wealth at the horizon or in terms of replacement income.”

 

There are two Indices.

The first is the EDHEC-Princeton Retirement Goal-Price Index series.

The Goal Price Index series has been introduced as the appropriate tool to measure the purchasing power of retirement savings in terms of replacement income.

This Index, represents the price of $1 of retirement wealth or $1 of replacement income per year.

There are Retirement Wealth Indices as well.

Both indices can be adjusted for the cost of living or not.

The Indices, which are available for a range of retirement dates, can be used to evaluate the purchasing power of savings in terms of retirement wealth or retirement income and answer the question: are my savings sufficient to secure my wealth or income objective?

This is similar in application as the BlackRock CoRI Indices outlined above.

 

The second Index is the Retirement Goal-Based Investing Index series. This represents the performance of improved forms of Target Date Funds (TDF) invested in a goal-hedging portfolio (GHP) and a performance seeking portfolio (PSP).

Therefore, it is an enhancement on the Income Indices outlined above.

The role of the GHP is to replicate changes in the price of retirement wealth or replacement income (i.e. to replicate the performance of a Goal Price Index above).

 

The EDHEC-Princeton indices are based on the application of goal-based investing principles.

EDHEC argue that the index series answers two important questions from a retirement investing standpoint:

  • “How much replacement income can be acquired from a given level of retirement savings? Given that income, and not wealth, is what matters in retirement, the ability to translate wealth into replacement income is critically important in assessing individual portfolios’ adequacy with respect to retirement needs. The Goal Price Index series has been introduced as the appropriate tool to measure the purchasing power of retirement savings in terms of replacement income.”
  • “How does one generate the kind of upside potential that is needed to achieve target levels of replacement income while securing minimum consumption levels in retirement? Dynamic allocation to two suitably designed “safe” and “risky” building blocks (namely the retirement goal-hedging portfolio and the performance-seeking portfolio), is required to achieve this dual objective. The Goal-Based Investing Index Series has been introduced to provide a benchmark for such dynamic retirement solutions, which can be regarded as improved, risk-managed forms of target-date funds.”

 

For those wanting more detail on the EDHEC Goals Based Investment approach see my previous Post: A more Robust Retirement Income Solution.

 

The values of the indices are published on the EDHEC-Risk Institute website.

 

Evolution within the Wealth Management Industry, the death of the Policy Portfolio

There has been a profound shift in the savings and investment industry over the last 15-20 years.

Changes to accounting rules and regulations have resulted in a large number of corporates closing their defined benefit (DB) pension schemes.

This has resulted in a major shift globally away from DB schemes and to defined contribution (DC) schemes, such as KiwiSaver here in New Zealand.

 

As a result, the individual has become increasingly responsible for investment decisions, for which they are generally not well equipped to make.

This has been likened to a “financial climate change” by the World Economic Forum.

Couple with an aging population, growing life expectations, and strains on Government sponsored pension/superannuation schemes there is an increasing need for well-designed retirement investment solution.

 

Overarching the above dynamics is the shortcomings of many financial products currently available.

Many Products currently do not provide a stable stream of income in retirement, or if they do, they lack flexibility.

As expressed by EDHEC Risk Institute robust investment solution need to display Flexicurity.

Flexicurity is the concept that individuals need both security and flexibility when approaching retirement investment decisions.

Annuities, although providing security, do not provide any potential upside. They can also be costly, represent an irreversible investment decision, and rarely are able to contribute to inheritance and endowment objectives.

Likewise, modern day investment products, from which there are many to choose from, provide flexibility yet not the security of replacement income in retirement. Often these Products focus solely on managing capital risk at the expense of the objective of generating replacement income in retirement.

Therefore, a flexicure retirement solution is one that provides greater flexibility than an annuity and increased security in generating appropriate levels of replacement income in retirement than many modern day investment products.

 

Retirement Goal

The most natural way to frame an investor’s retirement goal is in terms of how much lifetime replacement income they can afford in retirement.

The goal of most modern investment Products is to accumulate wealth, with the management of market volatility, where risk is defined as volatility of capital. Although these are important concepts, and depending on the size of the Pool, the focus on accumulated wealth my not provide a sufficient level of income in retirement.

This is a key learning from Australia as they near the end of the “accumulation” phase of their superannuation system. After a long period of accumulating capital a growing number of people are now entering retirement and “de-cumulating” their retirement savings.

A simple example of why there should be a greater focus on generating retirement income in the accumulation phase of saving for retirement is as follows:

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 $32k if they had remained invested in term deposits. That’s a big drop in income, and it will continue to fall as the Reserve Bank undertakes further interest rate reductions over the course of 2019.

This also does not take into account the erosion of buying power from inflation.

Of course, retirees can draw down capital, the rules of thumb are, ………… well, ………..less than robust.

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

 

The concept of placing a greater focus on retirement income as the investment goal is well presented by Noble Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Professor Robert Merton  in this Posdcast with Steve Chen, of NewRetirement.

Professor Merton highlights that for retirement, income matters, and not the value of Accumulated Wealth.

He also argues that variability of retirement income is a better measure of risk rather than variability of capital.

More robust investment solutions are being developed to address these issues.

 

Lastly, 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.

 

The death of the Policy Portfolio

Another important consideration is that investment practices and approaches are evolving. Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), the bedrock of most current portfolios, was developed in the 1950s. It is no longer that modern!

Although key learnings can be taken from MPT, particularly the benefits of diversification, enhancements can be made based on the ongoing academic and practitioner research into building more robust investment solutions.

The momentous shift is the move away from the old paradigm of the Policy Portfolio. The Policy Portfolio is the strategic asset allocation of a portfolio to several different asset classes deemed to be most appropriate for the investor.

It is a single Portfolio solution.

Over the last 15-20 years there has been several potential enhancements to the Policy Portfolio approach, including the move away from asset classes and greater focus on underlying “factors” that drive investment returns (Although a separate Post will be published on this development, an introduction to factor investing and its implementation have been covered in previous Posts).

This interview with Andrew Ang on Factor Investing might also be of interest.

 

The focus of this Post, and probably the most significant shift away from the old paradigm, is the realisation that investments should not be framed in terms of one all-encompassing Policy Portfolio, but instead in terms of two distinct reference Portfolios.

The two portfolios as expressed by EDHEC-Risk Institute and explained in the context of a wealth Management solution are:

  1. Liability-hedging portfolio, this is a portfolio of fixed interest securities, that seeks to match future income requirements of the individual in retirement
  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 back to finance studies in the 1950s on fund separation theorems (which is an area of research separate to the MPT).

The idea of two portfolios was also recently 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, discussed the idea of a “regret-proof policy” at a recent Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago.

 

The death of the Policy Portfolio was first raised by Peter Bernstein in 2003.

Reasons for the death of Policy Portfolio include that there is no such thing as a meaningful Policy Portfolio. Individual circumstances are different.

Furthermore, 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.

Therefore, institutional investors are moving toward more liability driven investment solutions, separating out the hedging of future liabilities and building another portfolio component that is return seeking.

The allocation between the two portfolios is seen as a dynamic process, which responds to the market environment and the changing likelihood of meeting investment goals.

 

Evolution of Wealth Management – the new Paradigm

These “institutional” investment approaches, liability driven investing, portfolio separation, and being more dynamic are finding their way into wealth management solutions.

Likewise, there is a growing acceptance the goal, as outlined above, is to focus on delivering income in retirement. Certainly a greater emphasis should be place on Retirement Income than previously.

Specifically, the goal is to meet with a high level of probability consumption goals in the first instance, and then aspirational goals, including healthcare, old age care and/or bequests.

Therefore, the investment solution should be designed to meet investment goals, as opposed to purely focusing on market risks as a whole, as is the case with the Policy Portfolio.

 

Goal-Based Investing

This new paradigm has led to Goal-Based investing (GBI) for individuals. Under GBI the focus is on meeting investor’s goals, much like liability-driven investing (LDI) is 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 two portfolio approach, fund separation, liability driven investing, 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 income requirements. It is typically made up of longer dated high quality fixed income securities, including inflation linked securities.

The second portfolio is the Growth portfolio, or return seeking 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 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. It 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.

 

Industry Challenge

The Industry challenge, as so eloquently defined by EDHEC Risk, as a means to address the Pension Crisis as outlined at the beginning of this Post:

“investment managers must focus on the launch of meaningful mass-customized retirement solutions with a focus on generating replacement income in retirement, as opposed to keeping busy with launching financial products ill-suited to the problem at hand”

“……..The true challenge is indeed to find a way to provide a large number of individual investors with meaningful dedicated investment solutions.”

 

As expressed above, saving for retirement is an individual experience requiring much more tailoring of the investment solution than is commonly available now. Different investors have different goals.

Mass-production of Products, rather than Mass-Customisation of Investment Solutions, has been around for many years with the introduction of Unit Trusts/Mutual Funds, and more recently Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

Mass-production, and MPT, down play the importance of customisation by assuming investment problems can be portrayed within a simple risk and return framework.

Although the Growth Portfolio would be the same for all investors, the Liability Hedge Portfolio requires a greater level of customisation, it needs to be more “custom-made”.

 

Conclusion

Encouragingly, the limitation of “one size fits all” approach has been known for some time. The investment techniques and approaches are available now to better customise investment solutions.

The challenge, is scalability, and the good news is advancements have been made in this area as well.

This is leading to changes within funds management organisations involving the greater use of technology and new and improved risk management techniques.  New skills sets have been developed.

The important point is that the knowledge is available now and it is expected that such investment solutions will be a growing presence on the investment landscape.

This will lead to better investment outcomes for many and have a very real social benefit.

 

The inspiration for this Post comes from EDHEC Risks 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.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

Technology focus that will transform the Wealth Management Industry – Robo Advice alone won’t be enough

The Professional Wealth Magazine (PWM) argues that Private Banks must take “goaled-based tech to heart”.

In their recent article they see technology assisting Wealth Managers in the following areas:

  1. Customer facing;
  2. Client relationship management; and
  3. Goals-Based wealth management Investment Solutions.

The first two are well known, the third, as PWM note, is flying under the radar. Combined they are the future of a successful wealth management business.

Quite obviously Robo Advice models use technology. Nevertheless, Goals-Based wealth management provides the opportunity for greater customisation and a more robust investment solution that better meets the needs of the customer.

Therefore, technology will play a major role in delivering more customised Investment Solutions to a wider range of people.

 

Technology is going to play a major role in the industry’s transformation.

As has been argued: “In order to be part of the fourth industrial revolution, the people-centric industry of wealth management must transform the production, customisation and distribution of retirement solutions, …..”

(See my first Kiwi Investor Blog Post, Advancements in Portfolio Management, for an article written by Lionel Martellini, of EDHEC Risk Institute, that appeared in the Journal of Investment Management in 2016: 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.)

 

The PWM article covered a recent symposium held in Paris focusing on fintech, quantitative management and big data, the technologically-led trends transforming the global industry.

The participants at the symposium gathered to consider: what should be the role of technology in client acquisition and servicing, data analysis, and portfolio management?

With regards to technology in general PWM note, “Private banks need to put technological solutions at the heart of their operations if they are to meet the demands raised by clients and relationship managers, though there will always be a need for human interaction”

However, having acknowledged that technology is critical for a successful Wealth Management business of the future, it appears to be a difficult issue to address. PWM “calculate that of the 150 global private banks we monitor closely for technological, business, customer-facing and portfolio management trends, less than one third have implemented a serious technological solution to the challenges encountered by their clients and relationship managers.”

“Many have only devised client-interfaces such as online forms, apps and screens allowing choices of services. But a handful have gone much further…….”

 

Under the radar

PWM noted that “…there is probably one technology-led sphere which is totally under-appreciated by the industry, which was highlighted at the summit. This is that of goals-driven wealth management (GDWM), ….”

 

Goals-Based investing is an improvement on the generic industry approach. Rather than viewing your investments as one single diversified portfolio, where the allocations are primarily based on your risk tolerance and the concept of risk is measured by volatility or standard deviation of returns, Goals-Based investing creates distinct milestones (goals) that are closely aligned with the priorities in your life.

Goals-Based investing closely matches your investment assets with your unique goals and objectives (customisation). It is the Wealth Management counterpart to Liability Driven Investing (LDI), which is implemented by pensions and insurance companies where their investment problems are reflected in the terms of their future liabilities (expected future insurance claims), much like a Wealth Management client’s future priorities (goals). LDI is also implemented by Pension Funds, particularly those with Defined Benefits, which are known future liabilities/cashflows.

Goals-Based Investing offers a more robust investment solution, provides a closer alignment of retirement goals and investment assets. It will also help investors avoid some common behavioural biases, such as regret and hindsight bias.

The benefits of Goals-Based Investing are a:

  1. More stable level of income in retirement;
  2. More efficient use of capital – potentially need less retirement savings;
  3. Better framework to make trade-off between allocations to equities and fixed income; and
  4. Improved likelihood of reaching desired standard of living in retirement.

In summary, a Goals-Based investment strategy increases the likelihood of reaching a customer’s retirement income objectives. It can also achieve this with a more efficient allocation of capital. This additional capital could be used for current consumption or invested in growth assets to potentially fund a higher standard of living in retirement, or used for other investment goals e.g. endowments and legacies.

 

As the PWM article points out, technology is allowing “wealth managers to use institutional tools, helping clients to prepare for key life events….. Length of investment terms, risk tolerances, prices, taxes, depreciation levels can all be plugged into a model by relationship managers. Optimal asset allocations can then be arrived at and modified to plan for specific goals.“

“While few private banks currently approach this topic seriously, it surely must become the wealth management paradigm for the future. It will still require human wealth managers to advise clients and shepherd them through the process, but it will put an algorithmic system at the centre of the asset allocation decision. There is no substitute for this and it will most likely steal the very soul of wealth management.”

The Bold is mine, LDI is an institutional tool implemented to meet specific goals.

 

This is beyond a straight forward Robo Advice model and the filling out of a generic risk profile questionnaire. Technology is being applied to determine more customised investment solutions, taking into consideration a greater array of personal information and then implementing an investment solution using more advanced portfolio techniques, such as LDI.

 

The article covers other technology related issues in relation to wealth management, such as increasing competition from the likes of Google, Facebook, Alibabas and Tencents.

Importantly, PWM see room for a human element in all of this.

 

PWM conclude we are at the beginning of the industry’s “revolution”, technology will play a part in the success of the modern wealth manager and in capturing the next generation of investors:

“The battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation and for the soul of wealth management has yet to be fought and won. But the opening salvos have been fired.”

“Private banks have interesting weapons in their armouries. Some still need to be modernised for effectiveness. But at the moment, those that appear to be vital for future success appear to be GDWM (goals-driven wealth management) tools, networking apps and screens for impact and ethics.

“The private bank of the future will manage, introduce and evaluate, as well as working closely with the next generation. These disciplines require a raft of technological systems and an army of relationship managers, not just to operate them, but to take the output which they deliver and use this to help build a long-term relationship with families of the future.”

Again bold is mine.

 

The future, according to PWM, is a raft of technology solutions with Goals-Based investing as the underlying investment solution.

The appropriate use of technology and the mass production of customised investment solutions will be the Uber moment for the Wealth Management industry. The technology and investment knowledge is available now.

The customisation of investment solutions involves a Goals-Based investment approach, based on the principles of LDI.

A winning outcome will be the combination of smart technology and the mass production of customised investment solutions that more directly meet the needs of the customer in achieving their retirement goals.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

 

Target Date Fund’s popularity set to Grow

Target Date Funds are popular, particularly amongst Millennials, and this growth is expected to continue.

This is a key insight from a WealthManagement.com survey of 530 retirement plan advisors in the US. The survey was conducted in February 2019. (TDF Survey Feb 2019)

 

Target Date Funds (TDF), also referred to as Glide Path Funds or Life Cycle Funds, automatically reduce the equity allocation in favour of more conservative investments, fixed interest and cash, as the investor gets closer to retirement.

In previous posts I have highlighted it is important to understand the shortcomings of TDF given their growing dominance international. According to the FT “Assets held in US target date mutual funds now stand at $1.1tn, compared with $70bn in 2005, according to first-quarter data compiled by the Investment Company Institute, a trade body.

Encouragingly, the shortcomings of TDF can largely be overcome.

 

The WealthManagement.com survey highlighted that almost half of those surveyed expect to increase their use of TDF in the next two years.

From this perspective, the following insights are provided from the survey:

  • TDF are an important tool in many retirement plans: 61% of Advisors surveyed currently have clients invested in target date funds.
  • TDF also typically represent an important component of their retirement plan when used.
  • Many plan advisors expect the reliance on TDFs to increase in the coming years.

 

Risk Management and Glide Paths

Of the Advisors surveyed longevity and volatility where the top two risks.

“The popularity of TDF was partly attributed to their ability to help retirement plan advisors address two of the biggest risks to successful retirement: longevity and volatility risk.”

“These two risks line up well with the strengths of the glide path concept. In particular, the gradual reduction in equity exposure over time seeks to minimize volatility in retirement, while the exposure to the growth potential of equities beyond retirement hedges against longevity risk.”

 

It is also noted that Glide paths help manage other risks, such as behavioural risks – to guard against investors adjusting their investment allocations based on emotions.

 

Interestingly: Nearly two-thirds of plan advisors (63%) report favouring a “through” glide path for clients, over a “to” glide path (37%); the latter achieves and maintains a conservative allocation at the target date, while the former reduces its equity allocation gradually throughout retirement.

“Given that retirement can last for 30 years or more, and that more plan advisors prioritize longevity risk over volatility risk, a “through” glide path is logically the more attractive feature.”

 

Customisation

The report observes that one of the major appeals TDF is the ability to contribute money to an investment account that automatically shifts its asset allocation over time according to a pre-determined schedule.

Therefore, in evaluating TDF Advisors tend to focus on the mix of assets and allocation in the glide path and the glide path itself.

Although Fees are a consideration, it is worth emphasising the above two aspects are considered the most important by Advisors in determining which TDF to recommend to Clients.

 

Therefore, it is not too surprising that a greater degree of customisation would be attractive to Advisors so as to better meet Client’s investment objectives:

  • Most advisors surveyed (59%) believe that more customization versus off-the-shelf options would help make TDFs more useful and more attractive to clients.
  • In fact, the most commonly cited reason advisors say they don’t use TDFs in the plans they advise is the lack of customizability (33%).

 

Goals-based Investing

Further to the above customisation observations, the report notes that the popularity of TDF among retirement plan advisors may be linked to advisors’ tendency to take a goals-based investment approach:

  • Just over half of the plan advisors surveyed (51%) identified most strongly with a goals-based label, as compared to targeting outperformance against a benchmark (41%)

“It’s perhaps not surprising that a group that favors the use of TDFs would also favor an investment strategy built around a specific target or outcome. This trend suggests that if goals-based investing is in fact gaining broader popularity, TDFs may benefit from increased usage as well.”

 

Shortcomings of Target Date Funds

I have posted previously on the shortcomings of TDF.

Essentially, Target Date Funds have two main shortcomings:

  1. They are not customised to an individual’s consumption liability, human capital or risk preference e.g. they do not take into consideration future income requirements or likely endowments, current level of income to retirement, or risk profile.
    • They are prescribed asset allocations which are the same for all investors who have the same number of years to retirement, this is the trade-off for scale over customisation.
  2.  Additionally, the glide path does not take into account current market conditions.
    • Risky assets have historically shown mean reversion (i.e. asset returns eventually return back toward the mean or average return, prices display volatility to the upside and downside.

Therefore, linear glide paths, most target date funds, do not exploit mean reversion in assets prices which may require:

    • Delays in pace of transitioning from risky assets to safer assets
    • May require step off the glide path given extreme risk environments

 

I have advocated the customisation of the fixed income allocation within TDF would be a significant step toward addressing the shortcomings of many TDF. The inclusion of Alternative assets and the active management of the glide path would be further enhancements.

These shortcomings are consistent with the desire for a greater level of customisation from Advisors.  Although not explicitly addressing the shortcomings outlined above, the following commentary from the report is interesting:

“A comment from one retirement plan advisor with more than 25 years of experience in the industry hits on multiple suitability issues at once. “TDFs look only at age and not where we are in the interest rate cycle,” he says. “Retirement date is not a terminus date, and many clients still need growth well after their retirement date.”

While most TDFs do not explicitly factor the interest rate cycle into their glide paths, many do address the need to maintain exposure to growth beyond the target retirement date—particularly through the choice of a “through” glidepath, although perhaps not at the level advisors would like to see. “

 

This is a great insight and consistent with my previous posts where it has been highlighted that maintaining high levels of cash at time of retirement is scandalous. This is addressed by having an equity allocation at the time of retirement (through glide path) and a more customised fixed income allocation within the TDF.

 

Measuring success

Great to see:

“In keeping with the general tendency toward a goals-based approach identified earlier, however, it is noteworthy that advisors most commonly evaluate TDF performance relative to peer groups (40%) and not based on outperformance of a benchmark, whether an industry index (21%) or a custom benchmark (16%).”

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

Financial Climate Change – And the Risks are with You!

The impending global pension crisis is well known, the numbers are staggering, and will worsen dramatically from here unless something is done.

Nevertheless, the well-known demographic problem is only one third of the story.

Increasingly the risks of the pension shortfall are residing squarely with the individual, who typically lack the time and expertise required to make such complex financial decisions. Furthermore, there is a lack of appropriate investment products to meet post-retirement challenges.

Addressing the retirement savings gap requires several responses. For the individual, more sophisticated and robust investment solutions and greater tailoring of the investment advice is required.

New Zealand is not immune from these global trends. Appropriately, the lack of post-retirement investment solutions in New Zealand has been identified and has had increased coverage recently.

To my mind, not just in New Zealand but globally, Goals Based Investment solutions with a focus on delivering a more stable level of income in retirement are a fundamental part of the retirement solution. Importantly, the investment knowledge and capabilities are available now to meet the challenges ahead.

 

The global savings gap is highlighted in the infographic from Raconteur, which illuminates a growing problem attached to an aging population.

As this article by Visual Capital highlights, the World Economic Forum (WEF) estimates that the combined retirement savings gap, for the following eight major countries: Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, India, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, is growing at $28 billion every 24 hours!

“The WEF says the deficit is growing by $28 billion every 24 hours – and if nothing is done to slow the growth rate, the deficit will reach $400 trillion by 2050…..”

The size of the global retirement savings gap is very well presented in the Raconteur infographic

As we know, we are all living longer, “life expectancy has risen by three years per decade since the 1940s”……. “The population of retirees globally is expected to grow from 1.5 billion to 2.1 billion between 2017-2050, while the number of workers for each retiree is expected to halve from eight to four over the same timeframe.”

As noted in the article, the WEF has made clear that the situation is not trivial, likening the scenario to “financial climate change”

 

In short, this is a major issue that needs to be addressed, and with a high degree of urgency, otherwise the effects are likely to be overwhelming.

This is not just a global issue, but also here in New Zealand.

The range of initiatives include raising the retirement age and likely cuts to benefits.

Specially for the individual, more sophisticated and tailored investment solutions are required. Goals Based investment solutions to be specific.

 

But wait, there is more!

Research by EDHEC Risk Institute builds on the view provided above. As they note, the three pillars of the retirement savings system are under duress.

The first pillar is the State/Government pension, as noted above. Nevertheless, this is only a third of the story.

The Second and Third Pillars are as follows.

The Second Pillar is the shift globally from Defined Benefit (DB) schemes to Defined Contribution (DC) e.g. Super Funds, Retirement Accounts, KiwiSaver. This shift takes the risk of delivering retirement income from the employer to the employee. Under a DC scheme the investment decision has been squarely placed with the individual. A default option is often provided if no investment decision has been made.

The Third Pillar is the growth of private savings, given the erosion of the above two Pillars. This is for those that can make additional savings and for those in retirement. Quite obviously the investment decision(s) rest with the individual, who typically lack the time and expertise required to make such complex financial decisions.

The key point with the Third Pillar is the lack of investment solutions globally to appropriately provide a secure and sustainable level of replacement income in retirement.

As EDHEC highlight:

Insurance companies, asset managers and investment banks offer a variety of so-called retirement products such as annuities and target date funds, but they hardly provide a satisfactory answer to the need for retirement investment solutions. Annuities lack flexibility and have no upside potential, and target date funds have no focus on securing minimum levels of replacement income.

 

The Solution

Luckily, there are appropriate investment solutions to help address the growing retirement shortfall.

Goals Based Investment solutions can help address the shortcomings of both Pillar Two and Three.

This Blog is filled with Posts on Goals Based Investing and the short comings of many Target Date Funds. For New Zealand readers I have outlined what a Goals Based investment solution would look like as a Default Fund option within Kiwisaver.

To recap, the modern day investment solution requires “flexicurity”. This is an investment solution that provides greater flexibility than an annuity and increased security in generating appropriate levels replacement income in retirement than many modern day investment products.  #EDHEC

The focus on generating replacement income in retirement should be considered during the accumulation phase.

The concept of Goals Based Investment solution is not radical, the investment frameworks, techniques, and approaches are currently available. The implementation of which can be easily handled by any credible fixed interest team.

Goals Based Investment solutions have been shown to increase the likelihood of reaching retirement income objectives. They also achieve this with a more efficient allocation of capital. This additional capital could be used for current consumption or invested into growth assets to potentially fund a higher standard of living in retirement, or used for other investment goals e.g. endowments and legacies.

Lastly, Goals-Based Investment strategies provides a better framework in which to access the risk of not meeting your retirement goals.

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

 

 

Balance Funds are not on Target for Default KiwiSaver Investors

Personally I am not convinced with the suggestion of moving KiwiSaver Default Fund Investors into a Balance Fund is the right solution, as was recently promoted in a Stuff article.

It is certainly a bit of a stretch to claim it is a radical idea. Nor is it really something materially different, it is a variation on a current theme – what equity allocation should be targeted.

 

The Balance Fund solution would result in a higher equity allocation, which in theory, and observed in practice over the longer term, will “likely” result in higher savings account balances. This is not guaranteed of course.

On this basis, a higher allocation is more likely to be appropriate for some Default Fund investors but not all. Conceivably it may be more appropriate for more than is currently the case.

Albeit, it is far from an ideal solution.

As noted in the article, it would not be appropriate for those saving for a house deposit, a high equity allocation is not appropriate in this situation. Therefore, there is still a need to provide advice as suggested. Unfortunately, whether it is a Conservative or Balance Fund a level of advice will be required.

A higher equity allocation may not necessarily result in a better outcome for KiwiSaver investors, what happens if an investor switches out of the higher equity weighted fund just after a major market correction as they cannot tolerate the higher level of market volatility. It may take years to get back to their starting position. Over the longer term, they may have been better off sticking with a more Conservative Fund. This is a real risk given a lack of advice around KiwiSaver.

This is also a real risk currently given both the New Zealand and US sharemarket have not had a major correction in over 10 years and both are currently on one of their best performance periods in history.

A higher level of volatility may result in pressure on the Government to switch back to a more conservative portfolio at a later date. A variation on the above individual situation which would likely occur at exactly the wrong time to make such a change in an equity allocation.

 

A more robust investment solution is required.

 

A possible Solution?

Perhaps the solution, and some may argue a more radical and materially different approach, is to introduce Target Date Funds as the Default Fund KiwiSaver solution.

Target Date Funds, also referred to as Glide Path Funds or Life Cycle Funds, reduce the equity allocation in favour of more conservative investments, fixed interest and cash, as the investor gets closer to retirement. Administratively it is more complex for the Providers, as many different Funds are required, as is a higher level of oversight.

Target Date Funds adjust the equity allocation on the premise that as we get older we cannot recover from financial disaster because we are unable to rebuild savings through salary and wages. These Funds follow a rule of thumb that as you get closer to retirement an investor should be moved into a more conservative investment strategy. This is a generalisation and does not take into consideration the individual circumstances of the investor nor market conditions.

Target Date Funds are becoming increasingly popular overseas e.g. the US and Australia. Particularly in situations where the Investor does not want or cannot afford investment advice. The “Product” adjusts the investor’s investment strategy throughout the Life Cycle for them, no advice is provided.

 

All good in theory, nevertheless, these products have some limitations in their design which is increasingly being highlighted.

Essentially, Target Date Funds have two main short comings:

  1. They are not customised to an individual’s circumstances e.g. they do not take into consideration future income requirements, likely endowments, level of income generated up to retirement, or risk profile.
    • They are prescribed asset allocations which are the same for all investors who have the same number of years to retirement, this is the trade-off for scale over customisation.
  2. Additionally, the equity allocation glide path does not take into account current market conditions.
    • Risky assets have historically shown mean reversion i.e. asset returns eventually return back toward the mean or average return
    • Therefore, linear glide paths, as employed by most Target Date Funds, do not exploit mean reversion in assets prices which may require:
      • Delays in pace of transitioning from risky assets (equities) to safer assets (cash and fixed income);
      • Stepping off the glide path given extreme market risk environments

The failure to not make revisions to asset allocations due to market conditions is inconsistent with academic prescriptions and common sense, both suggest that the optimal strategy should display an element of dependence on the current state of the economy.

The optimal Target Date Fund asset allocation should be goal based and multi-period:

    • It requires customisation by goals, of human capital, and risk preferences
    • Some mechanism to exploit the possibility of mean reversion within markets

 

To achieve this the Investment Solution requires a more Liability Driven Investment approach: Goals Based Investing.

Furthermore, central to improving investment outcomes, particularly most current Target Date Funds and eliminating the need for an annuity in the earlier years of retirement, is designing a more suitable investment solution in relation to the conservative allocation (e.g. cash and fixed income) within a Target Date Fund.

From this perspective, the conservative allocations within a Target Date Fund are risky when it comes to generating a secure and stable level of replacement income in retirement. These risks are not widely understood nor managed appropriately.

The conservative allocations within most Target Date Funds can be improved by matching future cashflow and income requirements. While also focusing on reducing the risk of inflation eroding the purchasing power of future income.

This requires moving away from current market based shorter term investment portfolios and implementing a more customised investment solution.

The investment approach to do this is readily available now and is based on the concept of Liability Driven Investing applied by Insurance companies, called Goal Based Investing for investment retirement solutions. #Goalbasedinvesting

 

Many of the overseas Target Date Funds address the shortcomings outlined above, including the management of the equities allocation over the life cycle subject to market conditions.

This is relevant to improving the likely outcome for many in retirement. This knowledge is helping make finance more useful again, in providing very real welfare benefits to society. #MakeFinanceUsefulAgain

 

As we know, holding high Cash holdings at retirement is risky, if not scandalous.

We need to be weary of rules of thumb, such as the level of equity allocation based on age and the 4% rule (which has been found to be insufficient in most markets globally).

We also need to be weary of what we wish for and instead should actively seek more robust investment solutions that focus on meeting Clients investment objectives.

 

This requires a Goals Based Investment approach and an investment solution that displays “flexicurity”. This is an investment solution that provides greater flexibility than an annuity and increased security in generating appropriate levels replacement income in retirement than many modern day investment products.

This is not a radical concept, as discussed above the investment frameworks, techniques, and approaches are currently available to achieve better investment outcomes for Default KiwiSaver investors.

 

Happy investing.

 

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

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Risk Measure of Wealth Management

Risk is not the volatility of your investment portfolio, or volatility of returns, risk is determined by your investment goals.

This is the view of Nobel laureate Professor Robert Merton. Such an assessment of risk also underpins many Goals-Based wealth management solutions.

More robust investment solutions are developed when the focus on risk moves beyond variations of returns and volatility of capital. The key risk is failure to meet your investment objectives.

 

The finance industry, many financial advisors and academics express risk as the variation in returns and capital, as measured by the standard deviation of returns, or variance.

Nevertheless, clients often see risk as the likelihood of not attaining their investment goals.

The traditional financial planning approach is to understand client’s goals, then ask questions to determine risk tolerance, which then leads to advising a client to adopt a portfolio that has a mean expected return and standard deviation corresponding to the Client’s risk appetite.  Standard deviation of returns, variation in capital, becomes the measure of risk.

 

Nevertheless, a different discussion with clients on their goals will likely result in a different investment solution. It will also improve the relationship between the Client and the Advisor.

Such a discussion will lead to more individualised advice and a better understanding of the choices being made. Clients will be in a better place to understand the impacts of their choices and the probability of achieving their goals. It will be more explicit to them in making trade-offs between playing it safe and taking risks to achieve their investment goals.

A goals based approach provides a more intuitive, transparent, and understandable planning approach.

Ultimately it leads to a more robust portfolio for the Client where information from the goals-based discussion can be mapped to a specific range of portfolios.

It is also a dynamic process, where portfolios can be updated and changed on new discussions and information. The process can adapt for multiple-goals over multiple time periods.

This is in stark contrast to the single period single objective, static portfolio traditionally implemented based on risk appetite.

There is also a strong foundation in Behaviour Economics supporting the Goals-Based investment approach.

 

I have covered Merton’s view in previous Posts, so please don’t accuse me of confirmation bias!

Merton’s views on risk is also well presented in a 2016 i3 Invest article in Australia, Risk is determined by Investment goal.

“Risk is not simply expressed as the volatility of your invested assets, but is determined by your ultimate goal, according to Nobel laureate Robert Merton.”

 

The i3 article provides an example on how your goal determines to a large degree what your risk-free asset is.

The goal provides a starting point for determining:

  • how far removed you are from achieving your objectives; and
  • importantly, how much risk you need to take to have a chance of meeting these objectives.

 

“If you had as your goal to pay your (Australian dollar) tax bill in a year from now, then what is the safe asset for you?”

“It would be an Australian dollar, one year, zero coupon, Australian Treasury Bill that matures in one year. That would be the sure thing.”

 

As the i3 article mentions Merton has criticised the idea that superannuation is a pot of money, instead of a basis for generating an income stream.

Merton argues that there should be greater focus on generating replacement income in retirement and we need to stop looking at account balances and variations in account balances. Instead, we should focus on the income that can potentially be generated in retirement from the investment portfolio, pot of money.

 

This is not a radical idea, this is looking at the system in the same way as Defined Benefit Funds did, the “old” style funds before the now “modern” defined contributions fund (where the individual takes on all the investment risk).  Defined contributions funds focus on the size of the pot.  The size of the superannuation pot (Kiwisaver account balance) does not necessarily tell you the standard of living that can be supported in retirement.  This is Merton’s critical point.

 

A greater focus on income is aligned with goals-based investment approach.

As Merton’s explains, if we accept we should focus on income, targeting sufficient replacement income in retirement, the development of a comprehensive income product in retirement is not difficult. He concludes, “This doesn’t require the smartest scientist in Australia to solve this problem. We know how to do it, we just need to go out and do it,”.

 

As noted above I have previously Posted on Merton’s retirement income views. The material from these Posts comes from a Podcast between Steve Chen, of NewRetirement, and Professor Merton. The Podcast is 90 minutes in length and full of great conversation about retirement income. Well worth listening to.

 

For those wanting a greater understanding of Merton’s views and rationale please see:

  1. What matters for retirement is income not the value of Accumulated Wealth
  2. Is variability of retirement income a better measure of risk rather than variability of capital? – What matters for retirement is income not the value of Accumulated Wealth

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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