KiwiSaver

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

/ Kiwi Investor / 11 Comments

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.

 

Optimal Private Equity Allocation

/ Kiwi Investor / 4 Comments

TIAA (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Associations of America Endowment & Philanthropic Services) has published a paper offering insights into the optimal way of building an allocation to Private Equity (PE).

“Private equity is an important part of institutional portfolios. It provides attractive opportunities for long-term investors to harvest the illiquidity premium over time and extract the value created by hands-on private equity managers.”

 

Private equity is by its nature is illiquid. This in turn makes rebalancing a challenge. That is why a PE allocation that is too large endangers the entire portfolio, especially in times of crisis when secondary markets seize up.

 

According to recent analysis by Prequin, the popularity and growth of PE, and other alternative investments, is expected to continue.

Furthermore, recent Cambridge Associates analysis on those Endowments and Foundations with the better long-term performance records had “one thing in common: a minimum allocation of 15% to private investments.”

 

We all know, a robust portfolio is broadly diversified across different risks and returns. Increasingly institutional investors are accepting that portfolio diversification does not come from investing in more and more asset classes. This has diminishing diversification benefits.

True portfolio diversification is achieved by investing in different risk factors, for which illiquidity is one factor.

In my mind, direct private investments, such as Private Equity, Direct Property, and Unlisted Infrastructure have a place in a genuinely diversified and robust Portfolio.

 

From this perspective, the TIAA paper is very useful as it considers how to build and maintain an allocation to PE within a well-diversified portfolio.  They assume building out the PE allocation over time to an equilibrium allocation.

The Paper provides valuable insights into the asset allocation process of what is a complicated asset to model given cash commitments (capital calls) are made overtime and there is uncertainty as to when invested capital will be returned (distributions). TIAA model for both of these variables, in a relatively conservative manner.

The TIAA Paper notes that investors have no control over the rate and timing of capital calls and distributions. Therefore, the paper focuses on two key variables Investors can control for: an annual commitment rate and the risk profile of the assets waiting to be invested in private equity assets i.e. where to invest the cash committed to PE but not yet called.

 

TIAA propose a robust process to determine an appropriate allocation to PE to ensure the allocation can be maintained and the benefits of PE are captured over time.

“Obtaining the benefits of an allocation to private equity, while also avoiding its inherent illiquidity pitfalls, can only occur through an effective, risk-based strategy for executing the build-out to the long-term equilibrium state.”

The goal of the paper is to develop a framework and a sound approach.

 

The results:

TIAA’s modelling suggests that a target allocation to private equity strategies in the range of 30% to 40% presents minimal liability and liquidity risks.

TIAA also suggest, that for long term investors, such as Endowments, capital awaiting investment in private equity should be invested in risk assets with higher expected returns, such as public equities (sharemarkets).

 

This level of allocation is probably high for most, and particularly KiwiSaver Funds.

Nevertheless, KiwiSaver Funds are underweight Private investments and Alternatives, particularly relative to the Superannuation industry in Australia.

Given the overall lack of allocation to private investments, including PE, Direct Property, and Unlisted Infrastructure, many KiwiSaver providers are most likely over estimating their liquidity needs to the detriment of investment performance over the longer term.

For those wanting a discussion on fees and alternatives, please see my previous post Investment Fees and Investing like an Endowment – Part 2.

 

TIAA Analysis

With regards to the TIAA paper, they develop a simple three asset portfolio of Fixed Income, Public equities, and Private equities. TIAA use sophisticated modelling techniques looking at a number of variables, including:

  1. the annual commitment rate; and
  2. Risk profile of the assets waiting to be invested in private equity.

The annual commitment is defined as the new commitment to private equity every year as a percentage of last year’s total portfolio value.

“An annual commitment rate results in a long-term equilibrium percentage of the portfolio in private equity assets, as well as the portfolio’s corresponding unfunded commitment level. The unfunded commitment level is important from a risk perspective as it represents a nominal liability to fund future capital calls, regardless of the prevailing market environment at the time of capital calls.”

TIAA note that at low rates of annual commitment the equilibrium rate of PE is about twice the unfunded ratio. Therefore, a 6% annual commitment rate will result in a base case unfunded ratio of around 15%, and a PE allocation of around 30% at equilibrium.

For those wanting a brief overview of the methodology, All About Alpha provides a great summary.

 

There is no doubt that Alternatives are, and will continue to be, a large allocation within more sophisticated investment portfolios globally.

As Prequin note in this report, investor’s motivation for investing in alternatives are quite distinctive:

    • Private equity and venture capital = high absolute and risk-adjusted returns
    • Infrastructure and real estate = an inflation hedge and reliable income stream
    • Private debt = high risk-adjusted returns and an income stream
    • Hedge Funds = diversification and low correlation with other asset classes
    • Natural Resources = diversification and low correlation with other asset classes

A well diversified and robust portfolio will be able to meet these motivations.

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

Impact Investing – a large and growing market

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

A recent Report by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) estimated the size of the Global Impact Investing universe to be $502 billion (see: Sizing the Global Impact Investing Market).

It is important to note this is a separate measure “to estimates of the size of related markets (such as ESG or socially responsible investing). Neither, of course, are accurate or complete indicators of the current impact investing market size.”

 

The GINN report defines “impact investing as investments made with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return. Impact investments are made in both emerging and developed markets as well as across all asset classes, including private and public markets.”

 

They also note that impact investing has gained significant momentum over the last decade “as both an investment strategy and an approach to addressing pressing social and environmental challenges. Through impact investments, investors seek to generate both a financial return and positive, measurable social and environmental impact.”

 

The Article provides a detailed explanation of their approach and types of organisations included in the analysis. There is also a section on how to interpret the results.

The database captures many types of organizations. Over 60% are asset managers. About one in five are foundations, and the rest include banks, development finance institutions, family offices, and institutional asset owners.

The database also includes a global group of investors. The majority are based in developed markets, including the U.S. and Canada (58%) and Western, Northern & Southern Europe (21%). It also includes investors based in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America & the Caribbean, the Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East & North Africa.

 

 

Market Size

GIIN estimates the overall global impact investing industry AUM is USD 502 billion, as of the end of 2018.

They estimate that there is over 1,340 active impact investing organizations across the world.

They also estimate the median investor AUM is USD 29 million, the average is USD 452 million, indicating that while most organizations are relatively small, several investors manage very large impact investing portfolios.

Overall, asset managers account for about 50% of estimated AUM who typically channel capital via specialized managers.

Investments are across the board, including venture capital, private equity, fixed income, real assets, and public equities.

This is an important study, previously, as they noted in their article, a well-defined estimate of the size of the impacting market did not exist. This provides a benchmark to measure future industry growth.

 

Conclusions

The GIIN Report concludes as follows:

“Since the term ‘impact investing’ was formally coined in 2007, the industry has grown in leaps and bounds. With a growing recognition of the power of investment capital to address pressing social and environmental challenges, impact investing has attracted the attention of an increasing number of investors of all types and from all over the world. Indeed, over 50% of active impact investing organizations made their first investment in the past decade.

This research shows that there are over 1,340 active impact investing organizations across the world who collectively manage USD 502 billion in investments intended to bring about positive change. These figures are a snapshot as of the end of 2018, yet the market is quickly growing and will continue to do so. Indeed, it must: trillions of dollars are needed to effectively address the critical social and environmental challenges that face the world today, such as those outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals.

In order to meet global need, much more capital will need to be unlocked for impact investing — but there is good reason to be optimistic. One in four dollars of professionally managed assets (amounting to USD 13 trillion) now consider sustainability principles. There is great potential for these investors, who have already aligned their capital with their values, to more intentionally use their investments to fuel progress through impact investments. The growing consideration of social and environmental factors in investing is also a signal of a larger shift in the global financial markets — an increasing number of people are recognizing that their money should do more than just make more money. Their investments can — and should — also seek to fuel meaningful, sustainable social and environmental impact.”

 

 

This is a very interesting study and provides a benchmark to measure future growth of impact investing. Globally it is a large market and it is sure to grow further.

Likewise, impact investing is gaining a growing presence in New Zealand. Based on international evidence, there is a strong demand from investors for investments that generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside financial returns.

Fort those wanting more background on Impact Investing this report posted by the Ākina Foundation maybe of interest (Ākina Foundation Impact Investing Sept 2017).

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are Kiwisaver Funds, NZ Endowments, and Family Offices missing out on the benefits of Private Investment?

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

“Private investments, particularly private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC), have provided the strongest relative returns for decades, and top-performing institutions have been long-time allocators to private investment strategies, reaping the benefits of the outperformance.”

“Cambridge Associates’ past analysis indicates that endowments and foundations in the top quartile of performance had one thing in common: a minimum allocation of 15% to private investments”

These are the key findings of a recently published Cambridge Associates (CA) report.

Private investments include non-venture private equity, venture capital, distressed securities (private equity structure), private real estate, private oil & gas/natural resources, timber, and other private investments.

 

The Cambridge Report suggests a weighting of higher than 15% to private investment may be prudent: their analysis highlighted that top decile performers have higher allocations to private investments and that this allocation has grown over time to a mean allocation of 40%.

 

CA emphasis with proper diversification the risks within private investments can be appropriately managed. Nevertheless, they highlight there is a wide dispersion of returns in this space, as there are across Alternative strategies in general.

 

A critical issue, as highlighted by CA, was liquidity calculations, “investors should determine their true liquidity needs as part of any investment strategy”.

Liquidity should be seen as a “budget”.  An investment strategy should be subject to a liquidity budget.  Along with a fee and risk budgets.

CA emphasis that in relation to Family Offices “the portion of the portfolio needed for liquidity may be much lower than their allocation to illiquid investments would suggest.”

As CA notes, many of the top-performing Funds have figured out their liquidity requirements, allowing for higher allocations to illiquid investments.

CA conclude “Those willing to adopt a long-term outlook might be able to withstand more illiquidity and potentially achieve more attractive long-term returns.”

 

The Institutional Real Estate Inc article covered the CA report and had the following quotes from CA which helps to provide some context.

“Multi-generational families of significant wealth are often well-aligned for considerable private investment allocations,” said Maureen Austin, managing director in the private client practice at Cambridge Associates and co-author of the report. “The precise balance between the need for wealth accumulation for future generations and typically minimal liquidity requirements puts these investors in a unique position where a well-executed private investment allocation can significantly support and extend their legacy. Higher returns, compounded over time in a more tax-advantaged manner, make a sizable allocation to private investments quite compelling.”

  “The long-term time horizon that comes with private investing aligns well with the time horizon for multi-generational families and is often central to our investment strategy with each family……”

 

Although the CA analysis does not look at the New Zealand market, it does highlight that those Funds underweight private investments are missing out.

With regards to New Zealand, Kiwisaver Funds are underweight private investments and Alternatives more generally.

Given the overall lack of investment to private investments and alternatives by Kiwisaver Funds, do they overestimate their liquidity needs to the detriment of investment performance? Yes, quite likely.

It is also quite likely that a number of New Zealand Endowments and Family Offices do as well.

 

There is no doubt that Alternatives are, and will continue to be, a large allocation within more sophisticated investment portfolios globally.

As Prequin note in their recent report, investor’s motivation for investing in alternatives are quite distinctive:

    • Private equity and venture capital = high absolute and risk-adjusted returns
    • Infrastructure and real estate = an inflation hedge and reliable income stream
    • Private debt = high risk-adjusted returns and an income stream
    • Hedge Funds = diversification and low correlation with other asset classes
    • Natural Resources = diversification and low correlation with other asset classes

 

For those wanting a discussion on fees and alternatives, please see my previous post Investment Fees and Investing like an Endowment – Part 2.

As this blog post notes, a robust portfolio is broadly diversified across different risks and returns.

Increasingly institutional investors are accepting that portfolio diversification does not come from investing in more and more asset classes. This has diminishing diversification benefits.

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

Investors are compensated for being exposed to a range of different risks. For example, those risks may include market beta, smart beta, alternative, and hedge fund risk premia. And of course, true alpha from active management, returns that cannot be explained by the risk exposures outlined above. There has been a disaggregation of investment returns.

Not all of these risk exposures can be accessed cheaply.

The US Endowment Funds and Sovereign Wealth Funds have led the charge on true portfolio diversification with the heavy investment into alternative investments and factor exposures.

They are a model of world best investment management practice.  Much like New Zealand’s own Sovereign Wealth Fund, the New Zealand Super Fund.

 

Happy investing.

 

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

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Growing importance of ESG within the Alternatives sector

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

The growing importance of ESG within the Alternatives sector is one of the key themes from the JP Morgan Alts Survey March 2019.  This survey provides some fascinating detail on the state of the Global Alternatives industry, including Private Equity, Real Estate, Infrastructure and Hedge Funds.

Some of the other highlights from the survey include:

  • Diversified benefits – correlation matrix
  • Strategy and manager selection is vitally important – dispersion of manager returns
  • Detailed analysis of the varying Alternative categories e.g. hedge funds and real estate, including drivers of returns

 

As noted in previous Posts, Kiwisaver Funds are underweight Alternatives relative to the rest of the world, an alternatives allocation would be beneficial for Target Date Funds, and US Endowment have provided superior long term returns after fees due their successful allocations to Alternatives.

 

The benefits of Alternatives have been well documented and they are set to continue to become a larger part of Client portfolios over time as outlined by the recently published Prequin Global Alternatives Report.

 

Therefore, not surprisingly, according to JP Morgan, “Institutional investors are flocking to hedge funds this year, even after a turbulent 2018 marked by poor performance and market volatility.”

The demand for hedged funds is driven by the search for market-beating returns and diversification.

They found that about a third of respondents plan to boost allocations, up from 15 percent in 2018. Just 13 percent expect a decrease while 55 percent said they plan to maintain current allocations.

As a recent Bloomberg article highlighted, the hedge fund industry took its biggest annual loss last year since 2011, declining 4.8 percent on a fund-weighted basis, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. Managers were hurt by volatility that trampled markets, and hedge funds saw $33.5 billion in outflows.

JPMorgan polled 227 investors with about $706 billion in hedge fund assets for its annual Institutional Investor Survey.

 

For those new to Alternatives, a recent Investment News article provides some wonderful insights into the benefits of Alternatives and implementation challenges with clients.

With regards to the benefits of Alternatives, comments by Dick Pfister, founder and president of AlphaCore Capital, a firm that allocates between 15% and 30% of client assets to alternative investments, are worth highlighting.

“We look at some alternatives as diversifiers,” he said. “But we will also look at other alternatives as ways to capture chunks of up markets.”

The article notes the “message that investors, advisers and allocators like Mr. Pfister understand is that the big picture perspective rarely looks good for alternative investments, which is why those who dwell on broad category averages often get stopped at the gate.”

The article continues “Making the case for alternatives, which are generally designed to neutralize market beta and enhance alternative alpha, is never easy when market beta is robust in the form of a bullish stock market.”

“That is the reality of allocating to alternative investments. To benefit from the diversifying factors, investors and advisers must appreciate that losing less than the market can often mean gaining less than the market.”

“There’s always something to complain about when you have a diversified portfolio,” said Hans-Christian Winkler, a financial planner at Claraphi Advisory Network, where client portfolios have between 20% and 30% allocated to alternatives.

“A diversified portfolio will never outperform the market, but in times like the last quarter of 2018, when we saw the market down 20% from the high, our portfolios with alternatives were down 5%,” he added. “By using alternatives, you are spreading out your risk and making your investment portfolio a lot less bond-market- and stock-market-dependent.”

 

These are key points, they highlight the benefits but also the challenges when it comes to positioning Alternatives with clients and stakeholders e.g. Trustees, Investment Committees.

Alternatives “underperform” on a relative basis when equity and bond markets perform strongly.  This can have some challenges with Clients, the article is well worth reading from this perspective, as it provides insights into how a number of Advisors are positioning Alternatives with their Clients.

 

Happy investing.

 

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

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Balance Funds are not on Target for Default KiwiSaver Investors

/ Kiwi Investor / 7 Comments

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