Financial advisers are operating within a paradox. On the one hand, the industry is still reeling from the blow of the Royal Commission and the high levels of mistrust within the community towards the financial services sector. On the other hand, there’s every sign that demand for quality financial advice is growing – to the extent that some advisers may find themselves on the back foot when it comes to putting in place the necessary capabilities to deliver tailored advice solutions.

It seems that, if anything, the media coverage of the Royal Commission has only raised in people’s minds the inadequacy of their own financial knowledge when it comes to managing and growing their wealth. According to the most recent survey conducted by ASIC in August this year, 79% of participants agreed that financial advisers had expertise in financial matters that the participant did not have. Even after being exposed to the negative headlines, 75% agreed that financial advisers could recommend products that they normally could not find on their own, and 73% agreed that advisers could introduce them to good ideas they might not have thought of on their own.

So the need and desire for financial advice remains in place, but consumers still face a knowledge problem when it comes to finding an experienced adviser who they believe can genuinely help them achieve their objectives. It’s clear that the main reason people seek financial advice is to benefit from the expertise of the adviser, who they believe can provide recommendations that will improve their financial wellbeing and help them prepare for major life events. What it comes down to is not the overall perception consumers have of financial advice, which remains positive, but the way in which they discern the quality of individual advisers.

When it comes to demonstrating quality, advisers need to be able to show clearly how their advice adds tangible value to the client. Once a positive first impression is made, advisers must then follow through on their value proposition with a roadmap for success that the client can understand and that makes intuitive sense. Breaking down what are inherently complex topics can be a challenge, but it’s critical to ensuring clients are fully engaged in the process and can see for themselves how your advice is helping them build their wealth and meet their objectives. High-quality investment research can play a key role in supporting this process by giving advisers the information, visual data, and easy-to-use reporting tools they need to have deeper conversations that speak directly to their clients’ needs.

The Royal Commission has not spelled the death of financial advice, but it has made it harder for advice that can’t draw a direct link between the client’s individual needs and the investment decisions of the adviser or portfolio manager. We are entering a new age of financial advice that is seeing the role of the adviser shift from that of administrator and stock picker to someone who can deliver a holistic advice experience by showing that they have a deep understanding of their client’s position and can recommend high-quality investment products that support the client’s needs. This means having a thorough understanding of the qualitative aspects of different products, how they compare, and they can be used as part of a tailored investment solution.

The results of the ASIC survey support this, and while some of the survey findings may come as a surprise, many advisers will see this as old news. When it comes to choosing an advice provider, communication is one of the most important factors customers look for and anticipate in their interactions with advisers. Experience and reputation are obviously important, but a key differentiating factor is the way advisers talk to and engage with their clients. The ability to talk to clients in a way they can understand is just as important as an advisers reputation (38% versus 36%), while taking the time to understand their client and their goals is also one of the top attributes (32%).


Source: ASIC

What’s also interesting is that, for those respondents who had received financial advice (Group A), low cost became far less of a determining factor. For advisers who are successfully able to demonstrate the value of their advice, clients are more willing to pay because they can see how the advice they receive results in superior outcomes. That’s why it’s important to have not only high-quality investment research, but the right platform and tools that can deliver this research in a way that allows you to present complex information, including in-depth product comparisons and portfolio reports, clearly and concisely.

It’s also why we’ve continually evolved Lonsec’s iRate platform to ensure it’s more than just a place to access research, ratings and data. We give you the tools you need to get a more complete picture of your client’s portfolio, analyse and compare products across a range of qualitative factors, and demonstrate how your advice is contributing directly to their investment outcomes. For advisers looking to win the conversation game, a high-quality research provider can give them the edge they need.

Private markets have long been the domain of institutional investors. With benefits such as higher return potential, lower volatility, lower correlation to traditional listed assets, and enhanced diversification, it’s not hard to see why they are so attractive. Institutional investors such as super funds have been steadily increasing their exposure across the private market spectrum, which includes equity, real estate, infrastructure and debt.

Private markets by their nature require significant long-term commitments (in some cases capital can be locked up for ten or more years) and have significant barriers to entry given the large amounts of capital required. Both factors have traditionally made it difficult for retail investors to access the benefits of private markets, but this is quickly starting to change.

Private asset managers are exploring ways to make investing in private markets more accessible to retail investors by introducing greater liquidity and reducing minimum investment sizes. Along with slowing economic growth and the continued hunt for yield, this is making private markets an increasingly viable and attractive opportunity for retail investors and SMSFs seeking greater portfolio diversification.

Lonsec has seen an uptick in private market vehicles targeting retail investors coming to market over the last 12–18 months. Of particular note is the increased interest in private market funds (both equity and debt) being offered under ASX listed structures such as Listed Investment Trusts (LITs).  Such structures have been common in the UK and the US for some time but are a relatively new development in the Australian market.

Offering private assets through a LIT structure provides several benefits to retail investors, including:

  • The ability to create a diversified portfolio of unlisted assets with no minimum investment size;
  • Access to private markets in a more liquid investment structure, with investors able to buy and sell units via the ASX;
  • A greater focus on the long-term investment strategy. Because LITs are closed-end vehicles, managers are less concerned about funding applications and redemptions, which has the potential to boost returns compared to an open-end pooled vehicle;
  • No requirement to manage commitments to fund future investments. Capital is paid upfront and invested in the LIT from day one, so there are no additional capital calls for the investor.

However, as we all know, rarely do investors come across a free lunch, especially in the retail world. Trade-offs must be expected and managed in order to get the most value out of any asset class, and private markets are no different. When including private market assets in a portfolio, it’s important to think about the following:

Private market assets are illiquid

Private assets are by their nature highly illiquid, and investors wishing to redeem may have to do so at a discount to Net Asset Value (NAV). It’s important to treat an investment in private markets as a long-term investment, irrespective of the structure in which it’s offered. Investors wanting (or worse, needing!) to sell LIT units in periods of market stress, when many investors are heading for the door, may face significant discount to NAV. It’s important to ensure the private asset manager has policies in place for managing these discounts should they arise.

Expect some volatility along the way

Private assets offered in LITs will have a higher correlation to the broader equity market and are more volatile than traditional private asset investments. By offering private assets in a listed structure, market beta is introduced, exposing investors to swings in sentiment in a similar manner to any other security listed on the ASX. Volatility risk may also arise when units in the LIT are thinly or heavily traded, which could make the unit prices very volatile regardless of changes in the underlying value of the investments held by the LIT.

It takes time to become fully invested

Unlike traditional private assets, where commitments are drawdown over time, investors in private market LITs pay their capital upfront in exchange for units. Private asset managers don’t invest 100% of that capital immediately, but instead wait for investment opportunities to arise. Consequently, it may take between 12 months to four years to reach the target portfolio allocations. During this ‘ramp-up’ period, private asset managers will invest in other liquid assets ranging from cash through to credit or even equities. This ensures investors are generating a reasonable return or income from an early stage while the portfolio is getting set.

However, it does of course introduce other risks and exposures. It’s important to understand what assets you will be exposed to during the ramp-up phase, as this will impact your returns (and risk). You may not be getting the exposures you expected for some time.

Lonsec believes retail investors can benefit from investing in private markets, but they need to be mindful of the trade-offs when investing via listed vehicles. Retail investors’ needs are inherently different from those of institutional investors—they typically have shorter time frames, a greater need for liquidity, and smaller amounts of capital to invest. While private asset managers have sought to meet a number of these needs in recent years, there’s no panacea for investing in what are inherently illiquid, long-term assets. Retail investors need to ensure that investing in private markets via LITs aligns to their long-term objectives and risk appetite.

Super funds are off to a positive start in the December quarter, regaining momentum following a rocky September and paving the way for double-digit returns for the 2019 calendar year.

While markets have come under pressure in recent months, super funds have once again proved they are up to the task of navigating the significant uncertainty in markets, geopolitics, and the global economy.

Super fund returns held up well in October, despite weakness from Australian shares and signs of softer economic growth globally. The major financials sector has come under pressure due to constrained lending, lower net interest margins, and continued fallout from the Royal Commission. IT shares also suffered a dip as investors questioned the lofty valuations of Australia’s local tech darlings.

According to SuperRatings’ estimates, the median balanced option returned a modest 0.3% in October, but the year-to-date return for 2019 is sitting at a very healthy 12.5%. The median growth option has fared even better, returning 14.4%, while the median capital stable option has delivered a respectable 7.1% to the end of October.

Over the past five years, the median balanced option has returned an estimated 7.6% p.a., compared to 8.3% p.a. from growth and 4.7% p.a. from capital stable (see table below).

Estimated accumulation returns (% p.a. to end of October 2019)

  YTD 1 yr 3 yrs 5 yrs 7 yrs 10 yrs
SR50 Growth (77-90) Index 14.4% 11.9% 10.1% 8.3% 10.1% 8.5%
SR50 Balanced (60-76) Index 12.5% 10.5% 8.9% 7.6% 9.1% 7.9%
SR50 Capital Stable (20-40) Index 7.1% 6.8% 5.0% 4.7% 5.3% 5.6%

Source: SuperRatings

Estimated pension returns (% p.a. to end of October 2019)

  YTD 1 yr 3 yrs 5 yrs 7 yrs 10 yrs
SRP50 Growth (77-90) Index 16.4% 13.3% 11.2% 9.4% 11.4% 9.5%
SRP50 Balanced (60-76) Index 13.8% 11.7% 9.8% 8.3% 9.9% 8.7%
SRP50 Capital Stable (20-40) Index 8.3% 7.7% 5.9% 5.5% 6.0% 6.4%

Source: SuperRatings

“This year has provided further solid evidence of the ability of super funds to deliver for their members through a challenging market environment,” said SuperRatings Executive Director Kirby Rappell.

“Whether it’s the US-China trade conflict, the weaker economic outlook, falling interest rates, or the rolling Brexit saga, there’s been a lot for funds to take in. This has been a real test of their discipline and ability to manage risks on the downside. Growing wealth in this environment while protecting members’ capital is a tall order, but they have managed it well.”

Shifting asset allocation key to managing risk

One of the most important trends in the superannuation industry is the broadening of members’ investments across different asset classes. Over the past five years, super funds have shifted away from Australian shares and fixed income and moved a higher proportion of funds into international shares and alternatives (see chart below).

Change in asset allocation (2009 to 2019)

Super fund asset allocations have shifted towards alternatives

Source: SuperRatings

The shift to alternatives is significant and has been the subject of debate within the industry. Alternatives include private market assets and hedge funds, which despite the negative connotations can provide an important source of diversification and downside protection when markets take a turn for the worse.

These assets tend to be less liquid, but they can play an important role for funds looking to generate income while managing risks for their members in a world characterised by low yields and growing uncertainty. However, funds should be clear about their alternatives strategy and the risks they could potentially add to members’ portfolios.

“This shift in asset allocation is in part being driven by the low interest rate environment, which has prompted super funds to reach for yield by allocating to alternatives and other less liquid assets,” said Mr Rappell.

“This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and it may in fact result in a more robust asset allocation, but it’s something members should be aware of. Alternatives can help protect capital under certain market conditions, but they can also be used to boost returns by taking on some additional risk. We generally think the shift to a broader asset allocation is positive, but funds should not be complacent in ensuring risk is appropriately managed.”

Lonsec has again been voted Research House of the Year according to an annual survey of financial advisers and fund managers conducted by and reported in Money Management magazine.

Lonsec this year was considered highly regarded among advisers for the quality of its staff, its model portfolio capabilities, value for money, the quality of its consulting services, the depth of its investment product research, and the sophistication of its asset allocation research.

“We’re absolutely delighted to be named Research House of the Year for 2019, and to be voted number one by advisers for the fourth year in a row,” said Lonsec Research Executive Director Libby Newman.

“This is testament to our people, whose commitment to the continual improvement of our research capabilities and the value of our offering has kept us on top.”

The results come as Lonsec launches new enhancements to its iRate platform, which allow users to incorporate ASX shares in their portfolio analysis and comparisons, with individual superannuation investment options to be added in December. This will enable advisers to get the best possible picture of their client’s portfolio, from shares and other listed products to traditional managed funds and superannuation.

“Our ability to provide in-depth investment product research is the most important factor our advisers look for, and we’re happy that they continue to regard us highly in this area,” said Ms Newman.

“We’re also working on delivering the most powerful tools in the market, so you have the best possible view of how your advice delivers value across your client’s portfolio. This is a very exciting time for Lonsec, and we’re grateful to our adviser community for putting their faith in us once again.”

Check out the full results of the Money Management survey.

 

 

 

 

Congratulations to all of the award winners and finalists for this year’s SuperRatings and Lonsec Fund of the Year Awards Dinner. A full list of the awards is available below.

Lonsec Disruptor Award

Drawn from the Lonsec rated universe, products or issuers who have challenged the status quo.

Winner
Vanguard

Finalists
Allianz Retire+
VanEck Vectors MSCI International Sustainable Equity ETF
Vanguard

Lonsec Investment Option Award

Drawn from the Lonsec rated superannuation investment options and based on a qualitative assessment of the investment team and portfolio design to meet member needs.

Winner
Sunsuper for Life (Balanced Fund)

Finalists
AustralianSuper Balanced (MySuper) Investment Option
Cbus Industry Growth
Sunsuper for Life (Balanced Fund)

 

Lonsec Sustainable Investment Award

Seeks to recognise and highlight the work of asset managers and key players incorporating ESG.

Winner
Ausbil Active Sustainable Equity Fund

Finalists
Alphinity Sustainable Share Fund
Ausbil Active Sustainable Equity Fund
BetaShares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF

Congratulations to all of the award winners and finalists for this year’s SuperRatings and Lonsec Fund of the Year Awards Dinner. A full list of the awards is available below.

SuperRatings Fund of the Year Award

 

Winner
Sunsuper

SuperRatings MySuper of the Year Award

Awarded to the fund that has provided the Best Value for Money Default Offering.

Winner
UniSuper

Finalists
AustralianSuper
CareSuper
Cbus Super
First State Super
HESTA
Hostplus
QSuper
Statewide Super
Sunsuper
UniSuper

 

SuperRatings MyChoice Super of the Year Award

Awarded to the fund with the Best Value for Money Offering for Engaged Members.

Winner
Sunsuper

Finalists
CareSuper
Cbus Super
Hostplus
Mercer Super Trust
QSuper
Statewide Super
Sunsuper
TelstraSuper
UniSuper
VicSuper

 

 

SuperRatings Pension of the Year Award

Awarded to the fund with the Best Value for Money Pension Offering.

Winner
QSuper

Finalists
AustralianSuper
BUSSQ
Equip
HESTA
QSuper
Sunsuper
Tasplan
TelstraSuper
UniSuper
VicSuper

 

 

SuperRatings Career Fund of the Year Award

Awarded to the fund with the offering that is best tailored to its industry sector.

Winner
HESTA

Finalists
Cbus Super
HESTA
Hostplus
Intrust Super
Mercy Super
TelstraSuper

 

SuperRatings Best New Innovation Award

Awarded to the fund that has developed and launched the most innovative product or service during the year.

Winner
Hostplus Self Managed Invest

Finalists
First State Super Explorer
Hostplus Self Managed Invest
Intrust Super SuperCents
Kogan Super
Raiz Invest Super
Sunsuper Adviser Online Transact

 

Infinity Award

Awarded to the fund most committed to addressing its environmental and ethical responsibilities.

Winner
Australian Ethical Super

Finalists
Australian Ethical Super
AMP
CareSuper
Christian Super
HESTA
Local Government Super

 

SuperRatings Momentum Award

Awarded to the fund that has demonstrated significant progress in executing key projects that will enhance its strategic positioning in coming years.

Winner
Cbus Super

Finalists
Cbus Super
HESTA
Mercer Super Trust
Rest
Sunsuper
Tasplan

 

SuperRatings Net Benefit Award

Awarded to the fund with the best Net Benefit outcomes delivered to members over the short and long term.

Winner
AustralianSuper

Finalists
AustralianSuper
CareSuper
Cbus Super
Hostplus
QSuper
UniSuper

 

SuperRatings Smooth Ride Award

Awarded to the fund that has best weathered the ups and downs of the market, while also delivering strong outcomes.

Winner
QSuper

Finalists
CareSuper
Cbus Super
CSC PSSap
HESTA
Media Super
QSuper

 

 

James Syme, Portfolio Manager, Pendal Global Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund

After five tough years, we think the combination of a more benign US monetary outlook and some extremely compelling valuations makes for some powerful opportunities in the emerging market (EM) domestic demand space.
We see domestic demand — the sum of household, government and business spending in an economy including imports but not exports — as the primary area of opportunity in EM, particularly after the 2018 sell-off.
We emphasise an exciting combination of supportive top-down conditions, good quality companies and attractive valuations.

India in favour
India is currently our most favoured market, despite economic growth recently falling to a six-year low.
We like a number of domestic names there including mortgage lenders. Now that the global liquidity outlook has eased, there is the prospect of the Reserve Bank of India continuing to cut rates even as Indian credit growth recovers.
India, unusually in EM, has not had a credit cycle in the last ten years, so the current pick-up in credit could be enduring.
Alongside that, India has ongoing demand for 5-10m residential units per year that need financing.

Mexico and UAE good value
Elsewhere, Mexican equities look markedly cheap relative to history, despite growth being decent, implying some excessively negative market expectations for the political environment.
We also like property stocks in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), particularly in Dubai.
Through its currency peg, the UAE effectively imports US monetary policy. Higher US rates coincided with oversupply of development properties to push real estate prices and related stocks down significantly.
As the Fed’s more accommodative stance improves financial conditions in Dubai, and helped by rising tourist numbers, the prospects for attractively valued Dubai property stocks look good.

South Korea and China
Turning to South Korea, the ongoing corporate governance revolution there is one of the main reasons for our overweight position.
China is a slightly separate story and continues to disappoint.
It has tightened monetary policy significantly in the last two years as the strength of the US dollar has put pressure on the Chinese renminbi, which has been a constraint on the People’s Bank of China’s ability to act.
Activity indicators remain soft, and we think that more stimulus through faster credit creation remains key to a recovery in China.

We’re bullish about:
• The EM domestic demand space offers an exciting combination of supportive top-down conditions, good quality companies and attractive valuations
• A more benign US monetary policy outlook

We’re bearish about:
• Potential for escalation in the US / China trade conflict
• Chinese growth continues to disappoint

Why allocate to Emerging Markets?
As cash rates head below 1%p.a. in Australia, the need for returns from growth assets to offset lower returns from income assets becomes very important for retirees. However in terms of portfolio construction, trying to improve returns without increasing risk becomes very important, due to the increased concerns of retirees around drawdowns. ‘

We believe that a discrete allocation to Emerging Market equities can assist retiree portfolios to achieve these goals because:
• Emerging markets tend to higher GDP growth than developed markets (DM) – and higher equity market returns (+2.46% pa over 20 years^)
• Despite this, emerging market countries are under-represented in most global equity portfolios
• The different growth profiles between DM and EM bring the benefits of diversification to a global equity allocation, without the need to try and time shifts between them.

Figure 1 demonstrates that a simple 50/50 split between MSCI World and MSCI Emerging Markets would have delivered a significantly higher return, at a very small increase in risk, than a purely developed market portfolio over the last fifteen years.

  • Figure 1: Risk-return profile since 1 Jan 2001

^ Calendar year performance of MSCI World and MSCI EM indices in AUD over 20 years to 31 December 2018.

Hear more about emerging markets as London-based portfolio manager Paul Wimborne of J O Hambro Capital Management presents an update in Sydney and Melbourne in November
Sydney (Nov 14)
Melbourne (Nov 12) 

DISCLAIMER
This communication has been prepared by Pendal Fund Services Limited (PFSL) ABN 13 161 249 332, AFSL No 431426 for the exclusive use of advisers and the information contained within is current as at 21 October 2019. It is not to be published, or otherwise made available to any person other than the party to whom it is provided.
PFSL is the responsible entity and issuer of units in the Pendal Global Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (Fund) ARSN: 159 605 811 (formerly BT Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund). A product disclosure statement (PDS) is available for the Fund and can be obtained by calling 1800 813 886 or visiting www.pendalgroup.com. You should obtain and consider the PDS before deciding whether to acquire, continue to hold or dispose of units in the Fund. An investment in the Fund referred to in this presentation is subject to investment risk, including possible delays in repayment of withdrawal proceeds and loss of income and principal invested.
This communication is for general information purposes only, should not be considered as a comprehensive statement on any matter and should not be relied upon as such. It has been prepared without taking into account any recipient’s personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this, recipients should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness having regard to their or their clients’ objectives, financial situation and needs. This information is not to be regarded as a securities recommendation.
The information in this communication may contain material provided by third parties, is given in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be accurate as at its issue date. While such material is published with necessary permission, and while all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information in this communication is complete and correct, to the maximum extent permitted by law neither PFSL nor any company in the Pendal group accepts any responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of this information.
Where performance returns are quoted “After fees” then this assumes reinvestment of distributions and is calculated using exit prices which take into account management costs but not tax you may pay as an investor.

Super funds have managed to push through a challenging quarter for markets, posting gains in September and recovering from August’s falls. Despite the recent volatility and geopolitical risks that have shaken global markets in recent months, Australia’s super funds have proved up to the task of navigating the current uncertainty.

The median balanced option returned 1.2% in September, according to leading superannuation research house SuperRatings. The median growth option fared slightly better, returning 1.5% in September, while the capital stable option returned 0.4%.

It has been a successful year for super funds, which has seen the median balanced option return hit 11.5% over the calendar year to date. Over the past five years, the median balanced option has returned 7.8% p.a., compared to 8.6% p.a. from growth and 4.9% p.a. from capital stable.

Accumulation returns (% p.a. to end of September 2019)

  1 mth 1 yr 3 yrs 5 yrs 7 yrs 10 yrs
SR50 Growth (77-90) Index 1.4% 7.0% 9.1% 9.5% 10.3% 8.3%
SR50 Balanced (60-76) Index 1.2% 6.9% 8.5% 7.8% 9.1% 7.7%
SR50 Capital Stable (20-40) Index 0.4% 5.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.4% 5.6%

Source: SuperRatings

Pension returns also saw promising growth in September, with the balanced option returning 1.2% over the month, compared to 1.5% from the median growth option and 0.5% from the median capital stable option.

Pension returns (% p.a. to end of September 2019)

  1 mth 1 yr 3 yrs 5 yrs 7 yrs 10 yrs
SRP50 Growth (77-90) Index 1.5% 7.9% 10.6% 9.7% 11.5% 9.3%
SRP50 Balanced (60-76) Index 1.2% 7.8% 9.3% 8.5% 10.0% 8.6%
SRP50 Capital Stable (20-40) Index 0.5% 6.7% 5.6% 5.5% 6.1% 6.3%

Source: SuperRatings

However, while pension returns have held up well, the low rate environment is making it challenging for super funds to deliver income to those in the retirement phase. The RBA’s interest rate cut last week brings the cash rate to a new record low of 0.75% and has pulled longer-term rates down with it. Falling rates have resulted in capital gains in bond markets since the start of 2019, but the downside is the challenge the low rate environment presents to retirees in need of income.

“With interest rates so low, the hunt for yield is intensifying and is likely to become more of a challenge for super funds going forward,” said SuperRatings Executive Director Kirby Rappell.

“Pension returns are holding up well, but the split between capital gains and income is critical for retirees, because they rely on income streams to fund activities in retirement. Over the past few years we’ve seen super funds steadily reduce their allocation to bonds in favour of other income-generating assets like alternatives and property in order to generate their required yield. We expect this theme to continue to play out as rates remain low and possibly move lower over the next year or two.”

The income challenge

The key theme throughout 2019 has been the steady fall in yields as uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook has seen investors move into bonds and other safe assets. In Australia, the yield on 10-year government bonds ended September at 1.0%, down from 2.3% at the start of 2019. As the chart below shows, yields have been on the decline since the Global Financial Crisis, with the 10-year yield falling from a high of 6.5% just prior to the market meltdown. Meanwhile, the cash rate is now 225 basis points below the “emergency lows” of 2009.

Falling yields have supported capital growth but at the expense of income

10-year bond yields are at an all-time low

Source: Bloomberg, SuperRatings

Over the past 15 years to September 2019, an estimated growth rate of 6.9% was observed for the SR50 (60-76%) Balanced Index, which is well ahead of the return objective of inflation plus 3.0%. Over this period, a starting balance of $100,000 in the median balanced option would have accumulated to over $271,000, which exceeds the return objective by around $43,000.

Growth in $100,000 invested over 15 years to 30 September 2019

Super funds have exceeded their return objective

Source: SuperRatings

“Long-term super returns are healthy, even when you include the GFC period,” said Mr Rappell. “However, there’s no doubt that super funds are finding it harder to identify opportunities in the current environment. With valuations stretched, funds are paying more for growth, while lower interest rates mean they need to look beyond traditional assets to generate income.”

One of the most common investment pitfalls is to back the current winner. All too often investors pile into the best performing share, asset class or fund manager over the past year in the hope that its success will be repeated. This type of naïve momentum strategy can pay off in the short term, but investors quickly find that prior successes are not so easily replicated.

Very rarely does this kind of momentum strategy hold up in the world of managed funds, even over relatively short periods of time. For example, looking at three-year rolling returns for global growth managers, it’s clear that performance can get shuffled around a lot. Those who have outperformed over the previous three years can easily find themselves near the bottom of the pack over the next three years. Equally, those languishing near the bottom can suddenly find themselves out in front of the pack.

Following the winner can make you a loser: Global growth manager return rankings (2016 versus 2019)

Source: iRate

Obviously, if your manager research is focused on performance, you need to take a long-term view. The challenge, however, is that your analysis will inevitably be limited to those managers who have built up a sufficient track record. There’s also the classic survivorship bias problem: researchers tend to focus on the performance of those funds that have managed to remain in existence over their period of analysis. For active managers, medium- and long-term market dynamics can also have a significant impact on performance. For example, there will be periods when the market favours growth managers and periods when it favours value managers. Just because growth has outperformed value over the past decade doesn’t mean it will continue to outperform in the next. A change in market fundamentals can upend even the most thoroughly researched investment theses.

This all creates a significant conundrum for quantitative research. While qualitative research methods are sometimes criticised for being subject to arbitrary rules, in fact it’s the opposite that proves the case. Determining which quantitative metrics are relevant for which managers over which timeframe is difficult to do with a high degree of precision or confidence. Determining which are the main predictors of future performance is nigh impossible.

So how do successful researchers overcome this challenge? Clearly, quantitative measures are essential in assessing which funds are capable of delivering on their investment objectives. But they are far from the only measures that should inform your investment decisions. Qualitative factors should ideally make up the bulk of your research, but they tend to play a back-seat role because gathering the qualitative intelligence required to pick successful managers is a resource-heavy, time-consuming task. This can result in its own form of selective bias, where researchers focus on those factors that are relatively easier to measure and compare.

The limitations of quant-only research

Selecting the right manager involves looking at more than just past performance. It’s about delivering future outperformance based on an in-depth assessment of individual investment teams. This means understanding how people, strategies, and capabilities come together to position fund managers for success. When it comes to selecting for future success, qualitative research is not merely a filter or a heuristic, it’s the backbone of your entire research process.

While you might be able to get away with poor manager selection when the bull market is raging, the real test comes when the market reaches a turning point. Given the troubling signals from financial markets over the past six months, this is something many investors are starting to take very seriously. Market turning points pose a real challenge for fund managers and have a way of pushing their process and discipline to their absolute limit. In times like these, product recommendations and manager selection really count, and advisers can quickly find their own processes exposed when things go wrong.

Identifying future outperformance is an artform, not a science. Lonsec’s entire research process is built around understanding the range of qualitative factors that determine manager success and giving advisers the tools to select investment products based on individual client needs. Our analysis is based on an onsite assessment of investment teams, combined with a rigorous peer review process that safeguards the quality and integrity of our investment product ratings. Looking back over the past 10 years, our qualitative process has proven its worth. Lonsec’s Recommended and Highly Recommended managers have outperformed their respective benchmarks, even during a period where the long-running beta rally has pushed passive investment strategies ever higher, casting shade on many active managers who have struggled to offer value in this environment.

Performance of Australian equity managers rated Recommended or higher by Lonsec

Performance of global equity managers rated Recommended or higher by Lonsec

Source: iRate. Average performance is calculated based on historical monthly performance of managers currently rated.

Despite the fact that some active managers struggle to beat the market, we know that there are some that can consistently outperform. But identifying them has little to do with their past performance and much to do with having the right people, resources and processes in place to deliver on their mandate. Looking back through history, there have been funds that have been highly successful, producing people who went on to found their own funds and enjoy similar success. For new funds and products entering the market, there’s often no track record to speak of, meaning qualitative factors are the only means to measure the likelihood of success. If you screen these products out simply because you don’t have enough performance data, you risk missing out on new innovations and strategies that could prove highly valuable.

People and resources

Arguably the most important factor to consider when assessing a fund is the people responsible for making the investment decisions. Your research should take into account the size of the team, its quality, its stability, and its key person risk. Is the team large enough to carry out its mission? Does its analysts have the right level of experience and a track record of success working together? Is the fund overly reliant on a single person whose departure could adversely affect the fund’s performance?

Your research should also examine the culture and structure of the fund. Does the investment team demonstrate a real passion for investing? Do they treat it as a business or a profession? Do they have a stake in the fund’s long-term performance?

Investment philosophy

One of the most telling tests of a fund manager’s capability is to ask them to explain their investment philosophy as simply and concisely as they can. A fund’s investment philosophy should not be a string empty words displayed on the manager’s website and then largely forgotten. An effective philosophy is regularly consulted to ensure that all investment decisions ae consistent with the fund’s purpose. Your research should examine the fund’s philosophy to see if it is consistent and lived out through its investment decisions.

Is the manager sticking closely to its mandate or is it stretching it too far? Is it remaining true to label and delivering on investors’ expectations, or could it end up surprising investors when the market turns? Does the manager exercise patience and buy/sell discipline, or are they liable to panic? While this is fundamentally a qualitative research exercise, this is one example where quantitative research can play a crucial supporting role. For example, Lonsec considers key valuation metrics, performance across differing market conditions, and output from style research tools using holdings-based style analysis software.

Research process

Once the soundness of the investment philosophy has been established, the next step is to ensure that the fund has a robust process in place to identify securities and incorporate them in their portfolio. This involves everything from the idea generation process to the intellectual property and software used to value assets. If the size of the manager’s investable universe is very large, what process do they have for narrowing down their list of potential opportunities? What attributes are they looking for when searching for the right stocks, bonds or properties?

What macro or market themes are they looking to take advantage of? How do they carry out their fundamental analysis and what valuation methods do they use? Do their people and systems have the appropriate breadth and depth to carry out their research process? Lonsec typically requests that managers explain multiple investment theses as a means of demonstrating the investment process at work and gauging consistency with the fund manager’s stated investment style and objectives.

Partnering with a research house to achieve in-depth qualitative research at scale

Developing an effective qualitative research model requires a lot of work, but the real challenge is in supporting the process with the right people and resources. Most investors don’t have the data or the capabilities to be carrying out in-depth qualitative research at scale, which is why they partner with a research house like Lonsec. For investors committed to generating long-term outperformance, a world class research effort is required to be able to identify and evaluate those managers that can generate consistent outperformance from the thousands of managers out there.

Using alternative investment to address pre- and post-retirement issues

Walter Davis, Alternatives Investment Strategist

Ashley O’Connor, Investment Strategist, Invesco Australia

Introduction

Investing in financial markets requires investors to balance return and risk, short-term and long-term goals, and cyclical and structural factors. To do so effectively, investors must also balance the human emotions of greed and fear. Greed drives investors’ desire to build wealth by seeking investments with attractive return potential, while fear drives investors’ desire to avoid losses by investing in low risk investments.
These two emotions are particularly acute for individual investors who have identified (and become emotionally attached to) a specific goal for their savings, be it retirement, funding a college education or buying a house. In such situations, investors want to ensure they generate attractive returns on their investments so they have sufficient wealth to fund the event, while at the same time avoiding damaging losses that could permanently impair their ability to do so. This issue is even more complicated for investors seeking to provide for a comfortable retirement, given the significant variables involved (such as the unknown duration of retirement and highly variable expenses) and the potentially devastating consequences of failure to achieve the goal.
This challenge is not limited to individual investors. Institutional investors, such as defined contribution pension plans, defined benefit pension plans, insurance companies and government-sponsored retirement plans, all face a similar dilemma. In many cases, these investors have plans that are underfunded and need to generate strong returns to meet future liabilities, while at the same time avoiding losses that would undermine their ability to do so.
In technical terms, the two primary risks that these individual and institutional investors face are longevity risk and sequencing risk. Translated, longevity risk is the risk of living longer than your savings last, while sequencing risk is the risk of large negative returns occurring at a time that makes losses difficult to recoup.
The solution to longevity risk is to seek investments that offer attractive return potential in order to help build sufficient wealth to fund retirement. Conversely, the solution to sequencing risk is to seek stable, low-risk investments in order to avoid potentially devastating losses that could permanently impair the investor’s ability to fund retirement. The challenge for investors is to build a portfolio that balances these competing needs.
This paper will explore the issues and challenges associated with longevity and sequencing risk, especially in the current market environment, and examine how alternative investments offer investors potential solutions for these risks.


Longevity risk

While longevity risk can be simply explained as the risk of living longer than your savings last, this risk is exacerbated by the fact that many of the variables associated with this risk are unknowable. For example, no one knows how long they or their spouse will live, or whether or not they will face unexpected costs in their retirement.

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, and World Health Organisation produced a report entitled Global Health and Aging. Several of the key findings of the report illustrate the complex and changing nature of longevity risk.

The challenges associated with longevity risk have implications not just for individuals and families trying to save for retirement, but also for society, governments, defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution pension plans and insurers. Specifically, the individuals and entities charged with helping people save for retirement need to ensure that they are doing two things: 1) saving and investing a sufficient amount, and 2) earning a return on their investments that enables them to have sufficient assets to afford retirement.

Unfortunately for investors, the ability to achieve attractive returns has been hindered by the fact that equity returns have declined sharply since 2000 on a global basis. Using the US as an example, in both the 1980s and 1990s, the S&P 500 generated an annualised return of over 17%.1 Between 2000 and 2010, however, equities experienced two bear markets and posted a negative annualised return of less than -1%1 for the decade. Since 2010, equity returns have rebounded, generating an annualised return of over 13%,1 through May 2017. For the period since 2000, equities have achieved an annualised return of just under 5%,1 well below the returns achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. As a result of declining equity returns, the returns achieved in the classic 60% stock, 40% bond portfolios have similarly declined, as shown in the chart below. While this example focuses on the US, the story of falling returns is consistent globally as most developed economies have experienced similar declines in returns.

Just as equity returns have declined, so too did interest rates as central banks responded to the Global Financial Crisis by drastically cutting rates in an attempt to support the markets and economy. In some parts of the world, interest rates have turned negative, causing investors to pay for the safety of low-risk investments. The current low level of interest rates, which can be seen in the below chart2, has dramatically impaired investors’ ability to earn an attractive yield on lower-risk assets.

While the decline in interest rates accelerated after 2000, interest rates have steadily been declining over the past 30 years as bonds have enjoyed a historic bull market. Again using the US as an example, during the 1980s the yield on 10-year US government bonds ranged between approximately 7% and 10%.3 In the 1990s, yields declined but remained attractive, ranging between approximately 5% to 8%.3 In the 2000s, yields fell further and generally ranged between approximately 2.5% and 5%.3 Since 2010, yields have often fallen below 2% and today yield approximately 2.3%.3 The US experience with falling rates is broadly consistent with the experiences of other developed economies around the globe.
Taken collectively, an investor saving for retirement faces the following challenges related to longevity risk:

 The need to fund a retirement of unknown duration, which could last far longer than expected due to increasing life expectancy
 The risk of increased expenses and medical costs in retirement due to illnesses associated with extended life expectancy, such as dementia
 A prolonged period of modest equity returns and low yields on low-risk government bonds.

In order to address this risk, there are two steps that investors can and should take: 1) increase the amount of money being set aside for retirement, and 2) seek to prudently increase the return potential of the portfolio. As the chart below illustrates, even modest increases in return can significantly improve an investor’s ability to fund retirement.


Sequencing risk
Sequencing risk is the risk of large losses occurring in a portfolio at a time when it is difficult to recoup them. For example, a 45-year-old who incurs large portfolio losses has 20 years before reaching the retirement age of 65, and therefore has a long time horizon over which to recover. The situation is very different when a 65-year-old incurs large losses in their first year of retirement. This also tends to be when an investor has the greatest amount of invested wealth during their life to date, making them more vulnerable to large losses. Such losses can force the retiree to return to the workplace and/or may require a more limited retirement than planned.

A primary reason that losses are such a concern to investors is that after a loss is incurred, the investor must achieve a return greater than the percentage of the loss in order to recoup the loss. This is due to the fact that the losses reduced the size of their portfolio and thus require a higher return to offset the smaller portfolio size. This point is illustrated in the diagram below;

For example, if an investor loses 50% on a $100,000 portfolio, the size of the portfolio shrinks to $50,000. The investor must then achieve a 100% return on the remaining $50,000 portfolio in order for the portfolio to return to its pre-loss size of $100,000. The larger the size of the loss, the greater return, and the longer it will take, to recover the losses. The impact of such losses on an investor is highlighted in the chart below.

When building a portfolio, volatility and risk of loss should always be a primary focus of investors, as market downturns occur more regularly than many investors realise. Many investors, however, have short memories and discount the potential risk of incurring outsized losses, despite several historical examples of large market declines, as shown below:

  • Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) — In 1929, the Dow hit an all-time high of 381.17, before declining 89% to 41.22 in 1932. It took until 1954, a period of 25 years, before the index achieved a new peak.3
  • DJIA — On October 19, 1987, the DJIA declined 22.6%, the largest one-day decline (in percentage terms) in its history. It took 15 months for the index to return to pre-crash levels, and 24 months for it to hit a new peak.3
  • Japanese Nikkei — The Nikkei hit an all-time high of 38,916 on December 29, 1989. As of May 31, 2017, the Nikkei sat at 19,650, approximately 50% below its all-time high.3
  • NASDAQ — On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ hit a record high of 5048.62 before declining approximately 80% by October 2002. It took 15 years for the index to achieve a new peak.3
  • S&P 500 — The S&P 500 hit a then record high of 1565.15 on October 9, 2007. From that lofty level, the index declined 56.8%, due in large part to the Global Financial Crisis, hitting a low of 676.53 on March 9, 2009. Over five years later, in March 2013, the index achieved a new peak.3

In order to mitigate sequencing risk, investors have long been counselled to reduce the risk of their portfolios as they age by shifting away from stocks toward bonds and cash equivalents. A common rule of thumb for investing was to subtract the investor’s age from 100 to determine how much to invest in stocks, with the remaining balance being invested in bonds and cash equivalents. Under this rule of thumb, a 30-year-old would invest 70% of their portfolio in stocks, while a 65-year-old would invest 35% in stocks. This same general principal can be seen in target date funds, as these funds typically reduce the risk exposure of the portfolio the closer they get to the target date.

This approach works well for the select few investors and pension plans that have comfortably funded their retirements and plans, but presents a challenge for investors who are dealing with underfunding or issues related to longevity risk. Furthermore, this approach worked much better for investors in the higher return era of the 1980s and 1990s, when equities achieved annualised returns of 17% and 10-year US government bonds yielded 5% to 10%.1 Since 2000, however, it has become much more challenging with equities having achieved annualised returns of less than 5% and 10-year US government bonds yielding between 2 and 3%.3 Additionally, investors in bonds may potentially face a bear market when interest rates inevitably increase from their current low levels.

The investment strategy of steadily reducing risk over time involves a clear return and risk trade-off. Specifically, by decreasing the allocation to equities and increasing the allocation to cash and bonds, investors are reducing the return potential of their portfolios in order to decrease the risk of their portfolio. This approach helps the investor address sequencing risk, but potentially exacerbates the investor’s longevity risk.


Balancing longevity risk and sequencing risk

Just as investors need to balance greed and fear, they need to strike a balance in addressing longevity risk and sequencing risk. Longevity risk pushes investors to invest in riskier assets in order to achieve higher returns and grow their portfolios, while sequencing risk does the opposite and pushes investors to increase their exposure to low-risk assets in order to reduce the risk of losses. Addressing the conflicting nature of these risks is critical, and extremely challenging, for investors.

While there is no magic solution to this issue, investors’ ability to balance these competing risks can potentially be improved by looking beyond traditional investments in stocks and bonds and considering alternative investments.

Alternatives have the potential to provide investors with unique return and risk characteristics that can help them address the issues of longevity and sequencing risk. Specifically, there are some types of alternatives that have the potential to address longevity risk by generating returns equal to, or greater than, equities, or generating current income well above that of bonds. There are other types of alternatives that have the potential to address sequencing risk by offering investors downside protection and volatility reduction. Lastly, there are some types of alternatives that can help investors simultaneously address both longevity and sequencing risk by generating equity-like returns with lower volatility and lower drawdowns than equities.


What are alternative investments?

While there is no one common definition for alternative investments, Invesco defines alternatives as investments other than publicly traded, long-only equities and fixed income. Based on this definition, investments that have any of the following characteristics would be defined as alternative investments:

  • Investments that invest in illiquid and / or privately traded assets, such as private equity, venture capital, and private credit.
  • Investments that engage in “shorting” (i.e., seeking to profit from a decline in the value of an asset), such as global macro, market neutral and long / short equity strategies
  • Investments in asset classes other than stocks and bonds, such as commodities, natural resources (i.e. timberland, oil wells), infrastructure, master limited partnerships (MLPs), and real estate.

(Please note that the above definition is intentionally broad and inclusive. Different investor types often have their own unique definition of alternatives and may classify specific investment types differently.)

Alternatives can be broadly categorised as liquid or illiquid. Liquid alternatives predominantly invest in underlying instruments that are frequently traded and regularly priced, and provide investors with the ability to redeem their investment on a regular basis, be it daily, monthly or quarterly. Alternative mutual funds, alternative Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities (UCITS) funds and most traditional hedge funds are examples of liquid alternatives. Alternative mutual funds and UCITs are available for investment by retail investors, high net worth investors (i.e., individuals with a net worth in excess of $5 million) and institutional investors (i.e., pension plans, foundations, endowments and sovereign wealth funds). Traditional hedge funds, however, are typically only available to high net worth and institutional investors.

Illiquid alternatives predominantly invest in underlying instruments that are privately traded, priced on a periodic basis (often quarterly) and require investors to hold the investment over a prolonged period (typically several years) with little to no ability to redeem the investment prior to its maturity. Private equity, venture capital, direct real estate, private credit, direct infrastructure and natural resources are examples of illiquid alternatives. The availability of illiquid alternatives varies from country to country and is dependent on each countries individual regulatory environment. Generally speaking, illiquid alternatives are typically only available to institutional investors and high net worth individual investors, and are not typically available to retail investors.

When looking at alternatives, Invesco divides the universe into two baskets: alternative asset classes and alternative investment strategies:

  • Alternative asset classes are investments in asset classes other than stocks and bonds. Investments in real estate, commodities, natural resources, infrastructure and MLPs are all examples of alternative asset classes. Alternative asset classes can be accessed through either liquid or illiquid investments. Examples of liquid alternative asset investments include investing in real estate through REITS, investing in the equity and / or bonds of publicly traded infrastructure companies, or investing in commodities by using futures. Examples of illiquid alternative asset investments include direct, private market investments in real estate, natural resources, and / or infrastructure.
  • Alternative investment strategies are investments in which the fund manager is given increased flexibility with how to invest. The manager is often given the ability to trade across multiple markets and asset classes such as stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, as well as given the ability to short markets. Common hedge fund strategies such as global macro, long / short equity, market neutral, managed futures and unconstrained fixed income are all examples of alternative strategies.

Strategies such as global macro, market neutral, long / short equity, and managed futures all typically invest on a long and short basis. The ability to short has the potential to significantly impact the return stream of these investments, as shorting gives these strategies the potential to generate positive returns in a falling market environment. At a minimum, the use of shorts provides these strategies with a powerful tool to potentially limit losses during such an environment.

Additionally, alternative investment strategies often are frequent users of derivatives, such as futures, forwards, options and swaps. While derivatives are often misunderstood and viewed as risky, within the context of alternative investment strategies, derivatives are commonly used to improve portfolio diversification, hedge out market risks, help protect on the downside and efficiently establish market exposure.

Given the myriad alternatives available to investors,4 one of the major challenges for investors is to understand the unique aspects of the various strategies. To help investors navigate this challenge, Invesco has created the below framework that organises the alternatives universe into six unique categories based on an investor’s investment objectives. The first five alternative categories (Alternative Assets, Relative Value, Global Investing and Trading, Alternative Equity and Alternative Fixed Income) represent liquid alternatives, while the sixth alternative category, Private Markets, represents illiquid alternatives.


How alternative investments can help mitigate longevity and sequencing risk

The ability of alternatives to help investors mitigate longevity and sequencing risk can be seen when looking at the historical performance of alternatives. To this end, the table below shows the historical performance of the various categories within Invesco’s Alternatives Framework compared to equities (i.e. S&P 500) and fixed income (i.e. Barclay U.S. Aggregate Bond Index). (Please note that the data used for the various categories of the framework reflect quarterly returns rather than monthly returns. While the liquid alternatives categories all have monthly returns available, the indexes used for private markets only report returns on a quarterly basis. In order to ensure consistency, quarterly returns were used.)

Examining the historical performance of these various alternative categories allows investors to gain a better understanding of the performance characteristics of each category, as well as how different types of alternatives can help address the challenges of longevity and sequencing risk. Based on an examination of the historical performance of the various categories, the chart below illustrates which risks the various alternative categories are best positioned to mitigate:

As a general rule, alternative investment strategies are effective tools to help reduce sequencing risk, while illiquid alternatives are well positioned to help reduce longevity risk. By combining both liquid and illiquid alternatives within a portfolio, investors can simultaneously address both longevity and sequencing risk.


How to implement alternatives into a portfolio to address longevity and sequencing risk

Once investors have made the decision to allocate to alternatives to address longevity and sequencing risk, they then need to decide how best to implement that decision. Invesco believes that the asset allocation process is as much an art as it is a science, and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. That said, there are key issues that every investor should address when considering adding alternatives to their portfolio. Specifically, investors contemplating adding alternatives to their portfolio in order to meet longevity and sequencing risk should consider the following questions:

  • What risk or risks are they seeking to address? Determining the risks an investor is seeking to address will drive the decision as to which alternatives to add to the portfolio. Investors primarily concerned about longevity risk will focus on alternatives that have the potential to deliver returns equal to, or greater than, those of equities. Investors primarily focused on sequencing risk will focus on alternatives that can reduce performance volatility and risk of loss. Finally, investors concerned about addressing both longevity and sequencing risk will focus on those alternatives that can simultaneously address both risks and/or will seek a combination of alternatives that can address each risk individually.
  • Which types of alternatives do they have access to? Many liquid alternatives strategies are available to all investors in familiar structures such as mutual funds or UCITs. Private market strategies, however, are typically only available to high net worth and institutional investors.
  • What are the risks associated with the alternatives they are considering? As with any investment, alternatives have unique risks associated with them. It is important that investors fully understand all associated risks before investing.
  • How much should they invest in alternatives? The percentage an investor allocates to alternatives varies widely. For most investors, a typical allocation to alternatives would range between 5% and 30%. There are several institutional investors, however, such as the Yale Endowment, that allocate over 50% of their portfolio to alternatives.5
  • Should the allocation to alternatives be funded from equities or fixed income? The decision of how to fund the allocation varies greatly from investor to investor, and is often driven by the investor’s return and risk objectives for both the portfolio and the investment being considered.

The answers to these questions will significantly impact which alternatives an investor uses, how they incorporate them into their portfolio, their impact on the return and risk characteristics on the portfolio, and subsequently, their effectiveness in addressing longevity and sequencing risk.

To illustrate the potential impact of incorporating alternatives into a portfolio, consider the following scenarios:

  • An investor is seeking to address both longevity and sequencing risk.
  • The investor’s current portfolio is 60% equities and 40% bonds.
  • Retail investors only have access to liquid alternatives (i.e. cannot invest in illiquid alternatives), and allocate evenly across the five liquid alternative investment categories.
  • High net worth and institutional investors have access to both liquid and illiquid alternatives, and split their allocation evenly between liquid and illiquid alternatives. These investors opt to gain exposure to alternative assets through direct, private market investments, rather than through liquid alternatives, due to the higher return potential of private market investments. Additionally, their exposure to liquid alternatives is evenly allocated across the liquid alternative investment categories, excluding Alternative Assets given they can access this exposure in direct/illiquid markets.
  • To fund their allocation to alternatives, investors allocate proportionally away from stocks and bonds (i.e. a 20% allocation to alternatives will be funded by reducing exposure to equities by 20% and reducing exposure to fixed income by 20%)
  • Investors allocate either 20% or 30% of their portfolio to alternatives.

Based on the above assumptions, the chart below illustrates the impact of adding alternatives to a portfolio:

In each of the above cases, an investor seeking to address both longevity and sequencing risk would benefit from higher returns and lower risk by including alternatives in their portfolio. Each portfolio’s compound annual return increased, thus helping the investor address longevity risk. At the same time, both risk (as measured by standard deviation) and maximum decline decreased, helping the investor address sequencing risk.

While the above example is relatively simple, it illustrates how the use of alternatives can help investors address longevity and sequencing risk by simultaneously boosting return and decreasing risk. Furthermore, by thoughtfully deciding which alternatives to allocate to, investors can alter the return and risk characteristics of their portfolios in order to most effectively address their unique needs vis-a-vis longevity and sequencing risk.


Summary

Investors must address the conflicting natures of longevity risk and sequencing risk if they are to invest successfully. These risks are especially acute for individual and institutional investors seeking to provide for a comfortable retirement.

The solution to longevity risk is to seek investments that offer attractive return potential in order to help build sufficient wealth to fund retirement. Conversely, the solution to sequencing risk is to seek stable, low-risk investments in order to avoid potentially devastating losses that could permanently impair the investors’ ability to fund retirement. The challenge for investors is to build a portfolio that balances these competing needs.

While there is no magic solution to this issue, investors’ ability to balance these competing risks can potentially be improved by looking beyond traditional investments in stocks and bonds and considering alternative investments.

Alternatives have the potential to provide investors with unique return and risk characteristics that can help them address the issues of longevity and sequencing risk. Specifically, there are some types of alternatives that have the potential to address longevity risk by generating returns equal to, or greater than, equities, or generating current income well above those of bonds. There are other types of alternatives that have the potential to address sequencing risk by offering investors downside protection and volatility reduction. Lastly, there are some types of alternatives that can help investors simultaneously address both longevity and sequencing risk by generating equity-like returns with lower volatility and lower drawdowns than equities.


Alternative investments at Invesco

Invesco is a leading provider of alternative investments on a global basis, and believes there are four aspects of its alternatives capabilities that collectively differentiate Invesco from its competitors:

  • Proven and experienced portfolio management — Invesco has been managing alternative investments since the early 1980s, and currently has over 350 investment professionals managing over $155 billion in alternative assets.6
  • Diverse array of alternatives capabilities and offerings — Invesco’s alternative capabilities span the entire alternatives universe with offerings across all six alternative categories: Alternative Assets, Relative Value, Global Investing and Trading, Alternative Equity, Alternative Fixed Income and Private Markets. Furthermore, Invesco’s offerings are available in a variety of structures, as we understand the importance of delivering offerings in the manner our clients prefer.
  • Experience working with retail, high net worth, and institutional investors — Invesco has extensive experience working with and meeting the needs of retail, high net worth and institutional investors. Approximately two-thirds of Invesco’s $858B US in AUM is from retail and high net worth investors, while one-third is from institutional clients.7 Furthermore, Invesco is committed to providing our clients with industry-leading thought leadership on alternatives, in order to help them better understand the unique nature of this asset class and effectively implement alternatives into their portfolios.
  • Robust risk management and corporate governance infrastructure — As a global company with a long history, Invesco understands the importance of building a strong risk management and corporate governance structure to support our offerings, including alternatives.

Given the strength of its alternatives capabilities, Invesco is well-positioned to help investors address the issues of longevity and sequencing risk through the inclusion of alternative investments in their portfolios. To learn more about Invesco alternative capabilities and specific offerings, please contact your local Invesco representative or visit our website at www.invesco.com.

 

1 Source: Zephyr

2 UK 2007 is based on British Banking Association data — discontinued.

3 Source: Bloomberg

4 Alternative investments are subject to various regulatory requirements that vary across the globe. Furthermore, there are often suitability requirements that an investor must meet in order to invest in alternatives. For this reason, not all alternatives may be available to all investors.

5 Source: Yale Endowment 2015 Annual Report

6 As of June 30, 2017.

7 Source: Invesco Ltd. as of March 31, 2017


About risk

Short sale risk. Short sales may cause an investor to repurchase a security at a higher price, causing a loss. As there is no limit on how much the price of the security can increase, exposure to potential loss is unlimited.

Alternative risk. Alternative products typically hold more non-traditional investments and employ more complex trading strategies, including hedging and leveraging through derivatives, short selling and opportunistic strategies that change with market conditions. Investors considering alternatives should be aware of their unique characteristics and additional risks from the strategies they use. Like all investments, performance will fluctuate.

MLP Risk. Most MLPs operate in the energy sector and are subject to the risks generally applicable to companies in that sector, including commodity pricing risk, supply and demand risk, depletion risk and exploration risk. MLPs are also subject the risk that regulatory or legislative changes could eliminate the tax benefits enjoyed by MLPs which could have a negative impact on the after-tax income available for distribution by the MLPs and/or the value of the portfolio’s investments.

Important information

This document has been prepared only for those persons to whom Invesco has provided it. It should not be relied upon by anyone else. Information contained in this document may not have been prepared or tailored for an Australian audience and does not constitute an offer of a financial product in Australia. You may only reproduce, circulate and use this document (or any part of it) with the consent of Invesco.

The information in this document has been prepared without taking into account any investor’s investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Before acting on the information the investor should consider its appropriateness having regard to their investment objectives, financial situation and needs. You should note that this information:

  • may contain references to dollar amounts which are not Australian dollars;
  • may contain financial information which is not prepared in accordance with Australian law or practices;
  • may not address risks associated with investment in foreign currency denominated investments; and
  • does not address Australian tax issues.

Issued in Australia by Invesco Australia Limited (ABN 48 001 693 232), Level 26, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia which holds an Australian Financial Services Licence number 239916.

 

Important information: Any express or implied rating or advice is limited to general advice, it doesn’t consider any personal needs, goals or objectives.  Before making any decision about financial products, consider whether it is personally appropriate for you in light of your personal circumstances. Obtain and consider the Product Disclosure Statement for each financial product and seek professional personal advice before making any decisions regarding a financial product.