New Zealand

Kiwi Wealth caught in an active storm

/ Kiwi Investor / 4 Comments

We need to change the conversation on investment management fees.

Kiwi Wealth recently released an insightful article on the case for having your money managed actively.

This article has, inevitably, being meet with a passionate defence of Index Management (also referred to as Passive Management). A debate that has been going on for some time, and we really need to move on!

Kiwi Wealth make the following comment in the introduction:

“The “active versus passive” debate has been a fixture in the investment industry for nearly 50 years. Passive investing is one of the cheapest ways to access equity markets globally, and has helped to drive down fees across the board. Passive investment managers and their suppliers have gone further than just offering low cost products however, and have portrayed actively-managed portfolios as a bad option for investors. We disagree, and believe, headlines supporting passive investing are largely driven by passive investment managers and index providers looking to frame the debate to their own advantage.”

 

I can’t disagree with that.

As the Kiwi Wealth paper touches on, there is a role for passive and active in constructing a robust portfolio.

The debate has moved on from black vs white, active vs passive, there are shades of grey in return outcomes (but maybe not 50 of them!).

The black and white debate is evident in this GoodReturns article, Passive Managers Reject Criticism. Also note the comments section as well.

 

I have written a number of Posts on Index management, highlighting their limitations, and risks, albeit I can see a role for them as part of a portfolio, as I can active management.

As with active management, it is important to understand and appreciate the limitations of what you are investing in.

I also hope we don’t follow Australia’s lead as an industry and focus too much on investment management fees. There is an appropriate level of fees, but it is not the lowest cost provider.

We need to change the conversation on investment management fees as recently highlighted by BlackRock, a large Index/Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) provider.

 

Index Funds do buy high and sell low, primarily because companies move in and out of indices.

Analysis by Research Affiliates highlights the trading costs of Index Funds (Passive Funds). Index Fund providers understand this and seek to minimise these costs.

As an aside, passive index funds are not passive, they are actively managed.

Albeit, there are huge trading costs around market index changes over time. These costs are incurred by the Index Funds, yet the costs are not evident given they are also included in market index returns. Index Funds incur these costs.

These costs are high, Research Affiliates estimates the difference in return between a company exiting and entering an Index to be 9.52%. The majority of this performance difference occurs on the day of index changes. It also only occurs on that proportion of the portfolio that is changing.

Stocks entering an Index tend to underperform over the next 12 months, while those leaving an Index tend to outperform over the following year.

For more, see this article on why low cost index investing is not necessarily low risk.

In another Post I highlighted that Index Funds have exposure to unrewarded risks and are often poorly diversified e.g. think when Telecom made up over 30% of the NZX and the US market is currently highly concentrated.

 

These articles are separate to the current issue of overvaluation in sectors of the US market, recently labelled, rather misleadingly, an Index Bubble, by Michael Burry, who was one of the first investors to call and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-08 that triggered the Global Financial Crisis.

 

Just on active management, there is a growing level of academic research challenging the conventional wisdom of active management and in support of active management, as I highlight in the Post Challenging the Convention Wisdom of Active Management.

The research Paper attached to this Post is the most downloaded paper from Kiwiinvestorblog.

 

Closely related, and what has busted open the active vs passive debate, leading to the shades of grey, is the disaggregation of investment returns – the isolation of drivers of investment returns.

As the Post highlights returns can be broadly attributed to three drivers: Market returns (beta), factors and hedge fund strategies beta, and alpha (returns after the betas, which can be purely attributed to manager skill).

The disaggregation of investment returns is prominently expressed by factor investing (e.g. value, momentum, low vol) and that investors can now access “hedge fund” type strategies for less than what some active equities managers charge. These are “active” returns.

The disaggregation of returns and technology will drive future ETF innovation, particularly within the Fixed Income space and alternative investments.

As you know, the isolation of the drivers of investment returns is also driving the fee debate, as the Kiwi Wealth paper infers, investors do not want to pay high fees for an “active” return outcome that can be sourced more cheaply.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

A short history of Portfolio Diversification

/ Kiwi Investor / 8 Comments

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased Diversification of the 60:40 Portfolio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Pioneering Portfolio Management – the Yale Endowment Model

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

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

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

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

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

Learnings from Norway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innovation and pressure on Investment Management Fees

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

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

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

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

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

True Portfolio Diversification

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

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

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

As a result, the inclusion of alternative investments is common place in many institutionally managed portfolios. For further discussion, see my previous Post on adding alternatives to a portfolio, it is an Evolution not a Revolution.  This Post highlights that more asset classes does not equal more diversification may also be of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future Direction of Diversification

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

KiwiSaver and OECD Pension Scheme Recommendations

/ Kiwi Investor / 9 Comments

The OECD has identified for some time the growing importance of Defined Contribution (DC) pension schemes.

There has been a major shift globally away from Defined Benefit (DB) schemes to DC, 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

The OECD has undertaken a review of DC potential drawbacks and how to incorporate them into regulatory frameworks to protect members. This led to the formation of a Core Principles of Private Pension Regulation.

In addition, the OECD Roadmap for the Good Design of DC Pension Plan made several recommendations.

 

Off interest to me, from the perspective of designing investment solutions, were the following:

  • Ensure the design of DC pension plans is internally coherent between the accumulation and pay-out phases and with the overall pension system. 

 

  • Consider establishing default life-cycle investment strategies as a default option to protect people close to retirement against extreme negative outcomes. 

 

  • For the pay-out phase, encourage annuitisation as a protection against longevity risk.

 

The OECD made a number of other recommendations which also have merit and they are provided below.

 

The OECD Core Principles of Private Pension Regulation emphasised that the objective is to generate retirement income.

Importantly, investment strategies should be aligned with this objective and implement sound risk management practices such as diversification and asset-liability matching.

“These should be appropriately employed in order to achieve the best outcome for the plan members and beneficiaries” (Guidelines 4.1).

Interestingly, these principles should apply not only to KiwiSaver, but to any forms of voluntary savings plans and mandatory arrangements.

 

The emphasis on generating retirement income and coherency between accumulation and pay-out phase (de-cumulation) are important concepts.

 

In my mind, a greater focus should be placed on generating income in retirement at the later stages of the retirement accumulation phase i.e. at least 10-15 years out from retirement. This is achieved by using asset-liability matching techniques as recommended by the OECD. The investment knowledge is available now to achieve this.

This reflects that the goal of most modern investment Products is to accumulate wealth and 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 lead to the generation of a stable and sufficient level of income in retirement.

This is a key learning out of Australia as they near the end of the “accumulation” phase of their superannuation system.

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

 

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

 

I have Posted previously on the concept of placing a greater focus on retirement income as the investment goal (as recommended by the OECD). The argument for such a goal is well presented by Noble Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Professor Robert Merton.

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.

 

It is appropriate to consider the OCED recommendations at a time that the New Zealand Government are reviewing the Kiwisaver Default Provider arrangements.

This Review is being undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) and submissions are due 18 September 2019.

This GoodReturns article provides some context.

 

It is also important to note that there is a paradigm shift underway within the wealth management industry. The industry is evolving, new and improved products are being introduced to the markets in other jurisdictions.

New and innovative financial products are disrupting traditional markets by offering alternative ways to receive retirement income. The new approaches combine existing products in new and different ways. While they do not always provide guaranteed lifetime income, the innovations nevertheless can give savers options and features that annuities do not provide.

For example, Managed Payout Funds in the USA are a major alternative to an annuity. These Funds are designed to produce a relatively consistent level of annual income but that does not guarantee that outcome. They are similar in some respects to Target Date Funds (TDFs) but have a different objective.

 

More robust investment solutions are being developed to meet the retirement income challenge, they also display Flexicurity.   EDHEC Risk Institute provides a sound framework for the development of Robust Investment Solution and the need for more appropriate investment solutions.

Increasingly the robust solution is a Goal-Based investment solution coupled with longevity annuities that begin to make payments when the owner reaches an advanced age (e.g. 80) as a means to manage longevity risk.

 

The future also entails an increasing level of customisation. This reflects that 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.

The investment techniques and approaches are available now to better customise investment solutions in relation to the conservative allocations within ones portfolio so as to generate a level of income to meet retirement goals.

Likewise, the allocation to risky assets (e.g. equities) should also be based on individual goals and circumstances.

The risky asset allocation should not be based on age alone, other factors such as assets outside of Super, other forms of income, and tolerance for risk in meeting aspiration retirement goals for example should also be considered.

 

In summary, the retirement investment solution needs be customised and focus on generating a sufficient and stable stream of replacement income. This goal needs to be considered over the accumulation phase, such that hedging of future income requirements is undertaken prior to retirement (LDI). Focusing purely on an accumulated capital value and management of market risk alone may lead to insufficient replacement of income in retirement, greater variation of income in retirement, and/or other inefficient trade-offs are made during retirement.

Importantly the investment management focus is not on beating a market index, arguing about fees (albeit they are important), the focus is on how the Investment Solution is tracking relative to the “individuals” retirement goals.

 

Happy investing.

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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

 

The OECD also recommends:

  1. Encourage people to enrol, to contribute and contribute for long periods.
  2. Improve the design of incentives to save for retirement, particularly where participation and contributions to DC pension plans are voluntary.
  3. Promote low-cost retirement savings instruments.
  4. Establish appropriate default investment strategies, while also providing choice between investment options with different risk profile and investment horizon.
  5. Promote the supply of annuities and cost-efficient competition in the annuity market.
  6. Develop appropriate information and risk-hedging instruments to facilitate dealing with longevity risk.
  7. Ensure effective communication and address financial illiteracy and lack of awareness.

 

 

Changing the Conversation on Management Fees

/ Kiwi Investor / 1 Comment

Bloomberg report:

“BlackRock Inc. is tired of the conversation about costs. The world’s largest asset manager, which runs some of the cheapest investment products available, plans to place a greater focus on the quality of the engineering, construction and management of its funds going forward, …… “

“There’s too much emphasis purely on cost,” said Senra, ……….. “We don’t talk enough about quality. That’s not to say we’re not going to be competitive — we have to be competitive, this is a competitive industry — but I would move away from just a low-cost conversation.”

 

I agree, “too much emphasis purely on cost”, investment management fees, there should be a “greater focus on the quality of engineering, construction, and management”, and “we don’t talk enough about quality”.

 

Now don’t get me wrong, I think investment management fees are important.  I also think we should have a mature discussion about fees.  

The cheapest solution may not be the best, a race to bottom is not helpful.  And I’d say, not necessarily in the best interest of investors.

 

There are many reasons why you might consider paying more for something.  In an investing context this could be for greater levels of true portfolio diversification to manage portfolio volatility and return outcomes, for example the model followed by US Endowment Funds which has been very successful.

 

I appreciate BlackRock is making comment in relation to gaining access to certain areas of the market that they believe will deliver greater return outcomes overtime. 

 

I think this is an interesting issue when framed in the context of Responsible Investing.  Particularly in relation to quality of data, portfolio construction, and portfolio management.   From a more broader perspective, it also  helps highlight issues beyond just a headline investment management fee.

 

The evidence is compelling, Environmental, Governance and Social (ESG) investing can be a clear win for companies.  It can also be a clear winner for investors, yet it is not easy to capture this value.

For a start the ESG data is not consistent across providers.  At the company level this creates a diversity of opinion amongst providers.  Several studies have highlighted the contrasting conclusions of ESG data providers. (See this article on ESG Scoring, sourced over LinkedIn and published by RBC GAM.) 

Studies highlight the low level of correlation between ESG data.  This can result from different weighting systems that generate an ESG score and that there is a level of subjectivity in determining the materiality of ESG input.

 

Let’s consider this from a New Zealand perspective.

As the recent RIAA Benchmark Report  highlights:

“When primary and secondary RI strategies are taken into account, the dominant responsible investment strategy is negative screening, which represents 44% of AUM. Where ESG integration was nominated as the primary strategy, it was usually paired with either corporate engagement and shareholder action, or negative screening, as secondary strategies.”

Negative Screening is the dominant Sustainable Investing approach in New Zealand, to move beyond this will take an increasing level of resources and time.

There is a lot more to RI than negative screening.  The implementation of negative screening is not straight forward i.e. coming up with the investment philosophy, approach, and framework takes time and consideration, trading on the exclusion list is relatively straight forward.

 

As the RIAA Report covers, there are seven broad RI strategies as detailed by the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA) and applied in the Global Sustainable Investment Review 2018, which maps the growth and size of the global responsible investment market.

The Broad RI strategies are:

  1. ESG integration
  2. Corporate engagement and shareholder action
  3. Negative/exclusionary screening
  4. Norms-based screening
  5. Positive/best-in-class screening
  6. Sustainability-themed investing
  7.  Impact investing and community investing

 

Best practice RI involves the full spectrum of these strategies, negative screening, ESG integration, Best-in-class and impact investing, at the very least.  This includes corporate governance and shareholder action.

 

So how do New Zealand’s leading investment managers compare to best practice.  The RIAA report makes the following comment in relation to New Zealand managers:

“There’s a growing number of investment managers applying leading practice ESG integration, but the overall number remains small. Of the 25 investment managers assessed, just eight (32%) are applying a leading approach to ESG integration (score >80%). That said, the number of leading ESG integration practitioners has risen from four last year, with some employing other responsible investment strategies as their primary strategy.”

 

It is great to see ongoing progress.

To implement leading ESG integration practices, let alone capture the full value of the ESG factors, takes time and resources.  Those managers making this commitment are to be commended.  It takes a lot of hard work.

The market leading managers are applying a wide range of sustainable investing approaches and resources.  This comes at a cost.

 

Therefore, some thought must be given to quality of RI outcomes being delivered and are they in line with best practice and is there continuous improvement in place.  Do they meet customers expectations?

 

Accordingly, I agree, let’s change the conversation about investment management fees, there are a lot of issues to consider other than investment management fees alone.

There is a lot to consider in delivering robust outcomes to investors.

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

/ 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

2018 was a shocking Year

/ Kiwi Investor / 1 Comment

Well its official, 2018 was a shocking year in which to make money. Not for some time, 1972, has so many asset classes failed to deliver 5% or more in value.

In terms of absolute loses, e.g. Global Financial Crisis (GFC 2007/08), investors have incurred far worst returns than 2018, nevertheless, as far as breadth of asset classes failing to deliver upside returns, 2018 is historical.

 

Here is a run through the numbers:

International Equities were down around 7.4% in local currency terms in 2018:

  • The US was one of the “better” performing markets, yet despite reaching historical highs in January and then again in September, had its worst year since the GFC, December was is its worst December return outcome since the 1930s.
  • The US market entered 2018 on a record run, experiencing it longest period in history without incurring a 5% or more fall in value.  This was abruptly ended in February.
  • During the year the US market reached its longest period in history without incurring a Bear market, defined as a fall in value of more than 20%. Albeit, it has come very close to ending this record in recent months.
  • Elsewhere, many global equity markets are down over 20% from their 2018 peaks and almost all are down over 10%.
  • Markets across Europe and Japan fell by over 12% – 14% in 2018
  • The US outperformed the rest of the world given its better economic performance.
  • The New Zealand sharemarket outperformed, up 4.9%!

Commodities, as measured by the Bloomberg Index, fell over 2018. Oil had its first negative year since 2015, falling 20% in November from 4 year highs reached in October. Even Gold fell in value.

Hedge Fund indices delivered negative returns.

Global credit indices also delivered negative returns, as did High Yield

Emerging Market equities where negative, underperforming developed markets.

Global listed Property and Infrastructure indices also returned negative returns.

Fixed Interest was more mixed, Global Market Indices returned around 1.7%:

  • US fixed interest delivered negative returns for the year, as did US Inflation Protected fixed interest securities. US Longer-term securities underperformed shorter-term securities.
  • NZ fixed interest managed around +4.7% for the year.

The US dollar was stronger over 2018, this provided some relief for those investing outside of their home currency and maintained a low level of currency hedging.

The above analysis does not include the unlisted asset classes such as Private Equity, Unlisted Infrastructure, and Direct Property investments.

 

Two last points:

  • Balance Bear, under normal circumstances, fixed interest, particularly longer-term securities, would perform strongly when equity markets deliver such negative returns as experienced in 2018. This certainly occurred over the last quarter of 2018 when concerns over the outlook for global economic growth became a key driver of market performance. Nevertheless, over the year, fixed interest has failed to provide the usual diversification benefits to a Balanced Portfolio (60% Equities and 40% Fixed Income). Many Balanced Portfolios around the world delivered negative returns in 2018 and failed to beat Cash.
  • Volatility has increased. Research by Goldman Sachs highlights this. In 2018 the US S&P 500 Index experienced 110 days of 1%+ movements in value, this compares to only 10 days in 2017.

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

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

 

Dick Quax – a Kiwi that could fly

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

This is one of the non-investment posts I will do from time to time.

For off-shore readers, a Kiwi, is a flightless native New Zealand bird and a national symbol of New Zealand.  New Zealanders are known affectionately as Kiwis, as is our currency (dollar), the Kiwi.

 

Kiwi’s Can Fly is a great book by Ivan Agnew.  It is a book about Rod Dixon, Dick Quax, and John Walker, a trio of great New Zealand runners that dominated the world of middle distance running in the 1970’s.

It is sad to hear of the passing of Dick Quax, a leader of this Group by all accounts.

I Posted about Dick Quax earlier in the year.  He was a hero of mine.

It is great to see the many articles paying tribute to Dick Quax, I liked Phil Gifford’s article,  comments by Rod Dixon, and these about being a rock star and also.

 

In a country where rugby and cricket tended to dominate in the 70’s and 80’s, and if not now, Dick Quax was under-appreciated by the New Zealand public for what he achieved.  He was world class, including being a world record holder over 5000m.

 

For those who are interested New Zealand has a strong tradition in middle distance running and great success at the Olympics:

New Zealand’s over 1500m at the Olympics:

1936 – Jack Lovelock won Gold

1964 – Peter Snell Gold, and John Davis Bronze

1972 – Rod Dixon, bronze

1976 – John Walker Gold

2008 – Nick Willis, silver

2016 – Nick Willis, bronze (becoming the oldest man to win an Olympic medal in the 1500m)

Over 5000m, Murray Halberg won Olympic gold in 1960 and Quax silver 1976.

Snell also has two Olympic golds over 800m, 1960 and 1964.

 

Happy investing.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

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