Last year marked the ten-year anniversary since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and while the global economy and our financial institutions have recovered, the same cannot be said for our democratic institutions. In a post-GFC world, liberal democracies have encountered a popular revolt from disenchanted voters expressing their resentment towards the economic systems and cultures that have left them behind. The surge in right-wing populism across the world has been symptomatic of globalisation, deregulation and the financialization of the economy at the expense of the working class.

Naturally, the resultant wage stagnation and off-shoring of domestic jobs has benefited the ‘wealthy elites’ who embrace a world of open borders and an abundance of labour. However, the growing inequality divide has stoked resentment and resulted in an insurgency against the so-called elite.

The rise of right-wing populism has had far-reaching implications for global equity markets and economic growth through increased geopolitical risks and heightened volatility. The two primary beneficiaries in modern history of this populist uprising have been US President Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign. While there are a myriad of other examples which could be drawn upon, such as the right-wing coalition government in Italy or Brazil’s recently elected populist leader Jair Bolsonaro (known as the ‘Tropical Trump’), it has been the Trump presidency and the Brexit fiasco which have had the biggest implications for global markets.

Donald Trump

Although a political novice and a bombastic provocateur, Trump unexpectedly rode into the White House by leveraging the collective anxieties of his rustbelt base. Trump was able to garner the enthusiasm of energetic, anti-establishment voters by vowing to “drain the swamp” and “make America great again”. Trump successfully portrayed himself as the voice of the downtrodden, committed to his own form of populist nationalism (despite being a billionaire himself).

The primary target of Trump’s rancor has been China, and the recent trade war has shaken equity markets both at home and abroad. Trump’s key gripe with China stems from the burgeoning trade deficit, which was US $375 billion in 2017 and which he claims has resulted in the destruction of the American manufacturing industry. America has seen a return to protectionism, with tariffs applied to a wide range of Chinese products in an effort to reduce the trade gap – even if the policy might be at odds with the traditionally pro-free market Republican party.

Predictably, China responded with its own tariffs, and global equity markets have been whipsawing erratically since. Fortunately for China, the yuan depreciated significantly against the US dollar during this period, which worked to partially offset the negative impact of the tariffs. This further fanned the flames between the two countries as Trump has frequently accused the People’s Bank of China for manipulating its currency to gain a competitive economic advantage. In addition to the trade deficit, Trump has been steadfast in his demands regarding the appropriation of foreign intellectual property in China.

While concessions might be made to reduce the trade imbalance, it is unlikely that Chinese President Xi Jinping will acquiesce to Trump’s demands regarding intellectual property theft given the ambitious ‘Belt and Road’ initiative and the ‘Made in China 2025’ policies. Consequently, equity market participants eagerly await the outcome of the negotiations when the ceasefire is set to expire on 1 March 2019.

As the table below shows, the US-China trade dispute has had an undeniable impact on China’s equity market returns in calendar year 2018, with the Shanghai Shenzhen CSI 300 PR Index (RMB) falling 25.3%. Unfortunately, the concerns surrounding the trade frictions were not contained in Asia, with a contagion effect spreading across the globe, placing downward pressure on all equity markets. Thus far, it has been a war of attrition, with both sides resolute in their demands.

China’s questionable growth trajectory and the ensuing impact on their global trading partners has further compounded investor concerns. Of importance is China’s trading relationship with Australia, and given China is our largest export market, we are particularly susceptible to a slowdown in Chinese growth and consumption. Consequently, Trump’s populist policies have impacted our domestic equity market with what the pundits have termed ‘the Trump dump’, which saw the S&P/ASX 300 TR Index return a crushing -8.4% for the 2018 December quarter.

Economic ailment and a fear of the fraying of the American social fabric contributed to the formulation of a key plank of the Trump campaign: the wall. The centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy platform with Mexico is his proposed wall on the US southern border (which Mexico will pay for, of course). However, political gridlock in Congress and the president’s unwillingness to compromise led to the longest government shutdown on record and culminated in a heavy selloff in equity markets in December 2018.

Notwithstanding Trump’s best efforts, his brand of economic nationalism is yet to bear fruit, and there has been little reprieve for the jaded working class who voted for him. While NAFTA has been renegotiated it is unclear whether the ‘wins’ match the campaign rhetoric. Moreover, the trade war is yet to reap any benefits for the forgotten manufacturing workers. Rather, it has weakened global capital markets and hurt American farmers. The wall remains stuck in the ‘swamp’ and the economic impact of the month-long government shutdown is still being tallied. Subsequently, the president has controversially declared a national emergency to release the capital to fund its construction.

Trump’s incendiary personality and Tweets aside, he has been able to successfully legislate meaningful tax reform in America and reinvigorated Regan-era trickle-down economics. Lower individual tax rates have been negotiated, however these were dwarfed by the corporate tax cuts, which were slashed from 35% to 21%. These policies have proved successful with his aspirational base while additionally providing buoyancy to one of the longest-running bull markets on record.

Brexit

The success of the Brexit vote hinged primarily on issues pertaining to sovereignty and migration, and the leaders of the ‘leave’ movement were able to successfully galvanize a support base of Eurosceptics. However, the implications for the corporate sector and the broader equity markets have been considerable. Unsurprisingly, the result of the referendum has upended the domestic share market in the UK and left global markets on tenterhooks.

The below chart illustrates the perilous position of FTSE 100 investors since the 2016 Brexit referendum, with the index significantly underperforming the broader global equity market over this period. Similarly, the value of the pound has been on a near linear downward trajectory as investors seek protection from the uncertainty surrounding the final outcome.

There has been mounting speculation as to the longer-term economic impacts that Brexit will have on the economy and businesses domiciled in the UK. Many economists have warned that leaving the European Union would reduce per-capita income levels for UK citizens while simultaneously crimping corporate sector activity. With regards to a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, the outcome could potentially be disastrous for the UK economy and corporate sector. The consensus among economists points to a likely economic contraction due to diminished foreign direct investment, additional trade barriers and reduced immigration. This could pose significant headwinds for GDP, as immigration typically boosts growth by increasing aggregate demand.

The corporate sector has similarly been thrust into turmoil, with companies restructuring their affairs in preparation for a disorderly exit. The industries most exposed will likely be those operating in highly regulated industries such as financial services and air travel, which face additional post-Brexit uncertainty. Typically, companies at risk have sought to establish subsidiaries in neighboring countries within the European Union or to redomicile their headquarters completely. Naturally, this process is expensive and will impact profit margins. For companies operating in the retail or consumer staples sectors, a corporate restructure is not a realistic option. Consequently, these companies will most likely be mired with supply chain disruptions and adverse currency movements impacting their bottom lines. More broadly, the issue of labour shortages has come to the fore, with a reduction in access to skilled labour creating a key business risk.

Brexit is likely to continue to pose an ongoing threat to the UK economy and corporate sector, and could potentially require significant adaptation and adjustment for local businesses—at material cost. Therefore, the ongoing stability and health of capital markets both domestically and abroad is directly at risk. As can be seen, nationalist sentiment heightens geopolitical risks in a globally connected world economy and turbocharges volatility, so investors beware.

Implications for portfolio construction

Trump’s policies are based on conflicting viewpoints. He is advocating for protectionism and championing the working class through a return of the American manufacturing industry—at the expense of China. At the same time, he has overhauled corporate regulations and slashed taxes, which should hardly appeal to the anxieties of frustrated voters. A similar wave of anti-globalist and nationalistic sentiment has likewise gripped the UK and propelled right-wing populism to the fore. These are not likely to be isolated incidents, and rather are representative of a global trend to renounce the political elite in favor of populists.

This article has highlighted the relationship between an upsurge in right-wing populism, and the resultant impact on global markets. The hostile rhetoric employed by populist leaders has become all too predictable, albeit successful, in galvanizing a disenfranchised support base. With the regressive left pitched against the radical right, there are no clear winners.

The reaction across stock markets has been varied, with indiscriminate selloffs often followed by relief rallies. Consequently, as we enter periods of growing political unrest and market volatility, the role of active management within a diversified portfolio becomes more critical. Times of increased volatility create mispricing opportunities for active fund managers to exploit, and can potentially deliver alpha to patient investors. As such, prudent investors should seek to capitalize on market inefficiencies during bouts of extreme volatility. As the legendary Oracle of Omaha (Warren Buffet) put it, “Be greedy when others are fearful.”

With respect to portfolio construction:

1. Challenging macroeconomic conditions provide opportunities for skilled investors. The proliferation of passive investment products has led to price distortions and programmatic trading, which during periods of heightened volatility can suffer without clear trends. However, increased volatility provides opportunities for active managers to protect capital on the downside through a range of options depending on their mandates (e.g. by increasing cash allocations or shorting). Similarly, volatility can expose mispricing that can be exploited by active managers.

2. Populism tends to be intertwined with economic rationalism which can favour small-cap stocks, as these domestically focused companies should, prima facie, perform proportionally better than larger and more globally exposed peers.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This document is published by Lonsec Research Pty Ltd ABN 11 151 658 561, AFSL 421 445 (Lonsec).

Please read the following before making any investment decision about any financial product mentioned in this document.

Warnings: Lonsec reserves the right to withdraw this document at any time and assumes no obligation to update this document after the date of publication. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Any express or implied recommendation, rating, or advice presented in this document is a “class service” (as defined in the Financial Advisers Act 2008 (NZ)) or limited to “general advice” (as defined in the Corporations Act (C’th)) and based solely on consideration of data or the investment merits of the financial product(s) alone, without taking into account the investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs (“financial circumstances”) of any particular person.

Warnings and Disclosure in relation to particular products: If our general advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition or disposal or possible disposal of particular classes of assets or financial product(s), before making any decision the reader should obtain and consider more information, including the Investment Statement or Product Disclosure Statement and, where relevant, refer to Lonsec’s full research report for each financial product, including the disclosure notice. The reader must also consider whether it is personally appropriate in light of his or her financial circumstances or should seek further advice on its appropriateness. It is not a “personalised service” (as defined in the Financial Advisers Act 2008 (NZ)) and does not constitute a recommendation to purchase, hold, redeem or sell any financial product(s), and the reader should seek independent financial advice before investing in any financial product. Lonsec may receive a fee from Fund Manager or Product Issuer (s) for reviewing and rating individual financial product(s), using comprehensive and objective criteria. Lonsec may also receive fees from the Fund Manager or Financial Product Issuer (s) for subscribing to investment research content and services provided by Lonsec.

Disclaimer: This document is for the exclusive use of the person to whom it is provided by Lonsec and must not be used or relied upon by any other person. No representation, warranty or undertaking is given or made in relation to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented in this document, which is drawn from public information not verified by Lonsec. Conclusions, ratings and advice are reasonably held at the time of completion but subject to change without notice. Lonsec assumes no obligation to update this document following publication. Except for any liability which cannot be excluded, Lonsec, its directors, officers, employees and agents disclaim all liability for any error, inaccuracy, misstatement or omission, or any loss suffered through relying on the information.

Copyright © 2019 Lonsec Research Pty Ltd, ABN 11 151 658 561, AFSL 421 445. All rights reserved. Read our Privacy Policy here.

Super members have escaped a fifth straight month of negative returns as market volatility turned in their favour over January, helping to claw back losses suffered in late 2018.

The latest data from superannuation research house SuperRatings reveals major fund categories all enjoyed strong growth in the first month of the year. The median return for the Balanced option in January 2019 was 2.5 percent, returning to members more than half of the losses suffered over the prior four months.

Members in the median Growth option enjoyed gains of 3.2 percent for the month, while those in either the median domestic or international equities option had returns of 3.4 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. The effect across all options has been to improve monthly balances after four months of declines, a particularly welcome outcome for those members approaching retirement.

Interim results only. Median Balanced Option refers to ‘Balanced’ options with exposure to growth style assets of between 60% and 76%. Approximately 60% to 70% of Australians in our major funds are invested in their fund’s default investment option, which in most cases is the balanced investment option. Returns are net of investment fees, tax and implicit asset-based administration fees.

SuperRatings Executive Director Kirby Rappell believes the latest data is a reminder that it is long-term performance that matters for super members and they should not panic in response to a few months of negative performance.

“Volatility remains the dominant trend across markets at the moment”, said Mr Rappell. “However, this time volatility has delivered gains to super members and is a reminder not to panic in response to short-term market movements.”

“A number of factors worked in members’ favour throughout January, including efforts to diffuse the ticking time bomb of a trade war between the US and China. Markets also improved with the end of the longest US government shut down on record.”

Looking forward, super members are also likely to benefit from improved conditions in February to date. In particular, bank stocks have improved as the final report of the Royal Commission failed to deliver as much pain for the sector as many feared.

Growth in $100,000 invested over 10 years to 31 January 2019

Select index

SR50 Balanced (60-76) Index
SR50 Growth (77-90) Index
SR50 Australian Shares Index
SR50 International Shares Index
SR50 Cash Index

Source: SuperRatings

Interim results only

Source: SuperRatings

Interim results

The positive performance for super funds in January has helped to boost total balances over the ten-year period ending 31 January 2019, with $100,000 invested in the median Balanced option in January 2009 now worth $213,227. The median Growth option is worth $227,393 over the same period, while $100,000 invested in domestic and international shares ten-years ago is now worth $244,722 and $245,403 respectively. Meanwhile, $100,000 invested in the median Cash option ten years ago would only be worth $130,094 today.

Top performing super funds

Release ends

Warnings: Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Any express or implied rating or advice presented in this document is limited to “General Advice” (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)) and based solely on consideration of the merits of the superannuation or pension financial product(s) alone, without taking into account the objectives, financial situation or particular needs (‘financial circumstances’) of any particular person. Before making an investment decision based on the rating(s) or advice, the reader must consider whether it is personally appropriate in light of his or her financial circumstances, or should seek independent financial advice on its appropriateness.

If SuperRatings advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of particular financial product(s), the reader should obtain and consider the Product Disclosure Statement for each superannuation or pension financial product before making any decision about whether to acquire a financial product. SuperRatings’ research process relies upon the participation of the superannuation fund or product issuer(s). Should the superannuation fund or product issuer(s) no longer be an active participant in SuperRatings research process, SuperRatings reserves the right to withdraw the rating and document at any time and discontinue future coverage of the superannuation and pension financial product(s).

Copyright © 2019 SuperRatings Pty Ltd (ABN 95 100 192 283 AFSL No. 311880 (SuperRatings)).

This media release is subject to the copyright of SuperRatings. Except for the temporary copy held in a computer’s cache and a single permanent copy for your personal reference or other than as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth.), no part of this media release may, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, micro-copying, photocopying, recording or otherwise), be reproduced, stored or transmitted without the prior written permission of SuperRatings. This media release may also contain third party supplied material that is subject to copyright. Any such material is the intellectual property of that third party or its content providers. The same restrictions applying above to SuperRatings copyrighted material, applies to such third party content.

 

Labor’s proposed changes to franking credits will result in a meaningful reduction in income for zero or low tax rate retirees invested in equity funds, according to analysis by leading research house Lonsec.

The research shows that the changes would have the biggest impact on dividend focused funds and Listed Investment Companies (LICs), which generally seek to maximise the value of franking credits to boost income for investors.

The charts below show the average yield and franking benefit for dividend focused funds and LICs researched by Lonsec. For a hypothetical investor paying no tax, the average franking benefit for both product groups is 2.0% on an annual basis, while the distribution yield is around 7.5% for dividend-focused funds and 4.7% for LICs. This compares favourably to the broader Australian equity market, which currently delivers a franking benefit of 1.6% and a distribution yield of 4.3%.

Average franking benefit & distribution yield for dividend focused funds (FY14 to FY17)


Source: Lonsec

Average franking benefit & distribution yield for LICs (FY14 to FY17)


Source: Lonsec

Labor’s proposal is designed to create a broader tax mix, and the removal of dividend refunds would help address distortions such as Australia’s significant home country bias. However, an Australian zero-percent taxpayer invested in an income-focused share fund would be at risk of losing a substantial boost to their after-tax investment income if the changes are implemented.

Most at risk are products with a higher than average franking benefit such as Plato Australian Shares Income Fund, Betashares Australian Top 20 Income Maximiser Fund, Perennial Value Share for Income Trust, Djerriwarrh Investments, and Mirrabooka Investments.

The changes would abolish cash refunds of franking credits for all Australian investors other than charities, endowments and some welfare recipients. Under the proposed changes, the system of dividend imputation will not change, but investors will no longer be able to claim cash refunds on excess imputation credits.

Lonsec has seen significant growth in its Managed Accounts offering over the last 12 months, as financial advisers increasingly seek an efficient way to implement professionally managed portfolios.

This growth is set to be given a further boost with Lonsec’s Managed Account solutions to be made available via the Netwealth platform.

As managed accounts gain an increasing share of advisers’ allocations, Lonsec has sought to widen it’s service offering to accommodate this rapidly growing area.

“We are very pleased to offer Lonsec’s suite of multi-asset and retirement focused managed portfolios on Netwealth. We believe the breadth and depth of our research positions us uniquely in the marketplace to deliver exceptional outcomes for advisers and their clients,” said Lukasz de Pourbaix, Executive Director, Lonsec Investment Solutions.

Netwealth Joint Managing Director, Matt Heine said, ”Our partnership with Lonsec further increases the wide range of options available on our platform, and allows our growing adviser network and their clients access to one of Australia’s leading investment managers”.

Release ends

Earlier this month, at his first public speech for 2019, RBA Governor Phil Lowe conceded the rate outlook is now “evenly balanced”, dropping the rate tightening bias present in RBA communications throughout 2018. In its latest forecasts contained in the Statement of Monetary Policy, the RBA has also revised lower its GDP and inflation forecasts.

So what has caused this change in outlook?

Weaker global outlook
Overall, global growth was strong in 2018 with falling unemployment and above-trend economic growth in the advanced economies. In Q4 2018, a few factors weighed on the growth outlook and the financial markets, including trade tensions between the US and its trading partners, slower growth in Europe and Asia, and political risks including Brexit and rising global populism. A greater-than-expected slowdown in China especially weighs on the outlook for Australia.

Stubbornly low inflation
With an improving domestic economy and tightening labour market, the RBA had been expecting inflation to move higher to its target band of 2–3%. That has not eventuated, and underlying inflation has been around 1.75% for some time. While there has been some pickup in wages growth, it remains subdued. In addition, rent inflation and the cost of new dwelling construction have remained soft given a weaker housing market.

Falling dwelling prices and a constrained household sector
Despite an improving labour market and falling unemployment rate, Australian households remain under considerable pressure, and household consumption growth has been weaker than expected. Factors weighing on household spending include subdued wages growth, rising cost of living (utility prices and mortgage interest rates), the high rate of part-time employment and underemployment, high household indebtedness, falling consumer sentiment in recent months, and also the declining wealth effects from falling house prices and weaker equities markets.

Tighter credit conditions
While domestic financial conditions remain accommodative overall, credit conditions for housing and small business have been tighter. Banks are facing higher funding costs as well as tightening lending standards as a result of the Royal Commission.

What’s ahead?

This change in rhetoric has seen financial markets pricing in a 60% chance of a rate cut by 2019, but in our opinion the RBA is likely to remain in wait-and-see mode. While it was forced to revise down its growth forecast, GDP is still expected to grow by 2.5% in 2018-19 and 2.75% in 2019-20, which is around the long-term trend level, while the unemployment rate is expected to stabilise around 5.0%. In addition to inflation, the RBA is likely to watch:

The business sector
As mining investment and exports return to more normal levels, non-mining business sector is expected to drive growth forward. However, business conditions and confidence have been trending lower, as measured in the NAB Business Survey. There are a few headwinds facing Australian businesses, including policy uncertainties associated with the federal election, slowing growth in China, tighter lending standards, falling building approvals and peaking mining exports. Retail conditions especially have been weak for quite some time—another reflection of a constrained household sector. The upcoming federal election is likely to contain business friendly policies to stimulate the economy and investment, while large infrastructure spending is also expected to drive investment growth in the medium term.

Household sector
The household sector remains constrained. As income growth has been weak, households have been saving less of their income to maintain consumption. Wages growth is therefore needed to maintain sustained consumption growth. The RBA will watch developments in the labour market closely. Leading indicators including the NAB survey employment index and SEEK job ads have pointed to a peak in employment growth. A marked slowdown in the labour market could see the RBA start cutting rates.

Dwelling investment
As the apartment building boom passes its peak, the fall in dwelling investment will be a drag on the economy and will likely see job losses in the construction sector and related industries. The RBA forecasts dwelling construction to decline by a cumulative 10% over the next two years. Given falling house prices, new approvals for houses and units are likely to be slow to come online. While infrastructure projects can absorb some construction employment, the overall drag on the economy would be significant over the near term.

Exports
The lower AUD will likely support export growth. While 2019 export growth will be driven by the completion of several large-scale LNG projects, once they reach full capacity their contribution to overall economic growth will be reduced. Rural exports this year are also expected to be lower due in large part to the severe drought.

The financial services industry was collectively holding its breath on Monday as Commissioner Hayne delivered the final report into misconduct and the 76 recommendations for how the system can be redeemed. Already chastened by the interim report, and already responding to the increased public awareness, there was a palpable sense of standing outside the headmaster’s office waiting for the punishment to be meted out.

But it was a case of ‘sell the rumour, buy the fact’ as the market had clearly factored in more severe measures, particularly with respect to the vertical integration model. The share prices of the major banks and financial services institutions rose in the wake of the report’s release, but the sector as a whole took a beating through 2018, weighing down the index and contributing in part to the relative underperformance of Australian equities. Investors were reminded of the importance of a sustainable financial services industry given its predominant weighting in the ASX.

ASX index performance versus financials


Source: FE

While the Royal Commission has played an important role in highlighting specific instances of gross misconduct and brought to the public’s attention some of the key regulatory challenges facing the industry, the seeds of change had been laid much earlier. The shift in behaviour and the heightened focus on risk and the management of conflicts has already resulted in three of the major banks largely exiting the funds management business, which has kept the research team, and the fund managers we interact with, busy for almost two years. The Royal Commission may act as an important catalyst for further cultural change, but already self-interest and common sense have prevailed in setting the major institutions on the right course.

On a sector specific basis, Lonsec will be having further discussions in its upcoming income sector reviews with funds impacted – directly or indirectly – by the ban on trailing commissions and the heightened focus on responsible lending.

 

Vertical integration in the advice sector has been a point of discussion within the financial services industry for many years. There are obvious conflicts that can potentially arise when advice is owned by an investment product manufacturer, and these have already been the subject of extensive scrutiny. Despite attempts to manage conflicts under vertical integration, the issue is still a concern for the industry and a key topic of the Royal Commission’s report.

However, while everyone would agree that conflicts can be better managed, government and regulators have stopped short of full structural separation between the provision of advice and the manufacture of investment products. The Royal Commission report, while highlighting the tendency of advisers among the ‘big five’ financial institution advice businesses to recommend in-house products, nonetheless baulks at the idea of forcing a separation of advice.

The Royal Commission’s view is that structural separation would be a “very large step to take” and that it is unclear whether the benefits of separation outweigh the costs. Ultimately, the issue comes down to how conflicts are managed and how a vertically integrated model aligns to the client’s best interest duties.

Vertical integration has become increasingly topical in the area of managed accounts. In recent years we have witnessed significant growth in managed accounts as a means of implementing holistic investment solutions. A catalyst to this growth was the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms, which took effect in 2013 and led to many financial advice groups seeking greater efficiencies in their businesses, and in some cases alternative sources of revenue, by creating their own in-house managed account portfolios.

While the Royal Commission has not mandated separation between product and advice, best interest obligations and conflicted remuneration are certainly areas of focus. There will be increased scrutiny on the governance structures overseeing in-house managed portfolios, including the composition of the investment committees and the range of qualified and experienced professionals involved in investment decisions. There will also undoubtedly be increased focus on remuneration structures within managed accounts (e.g. margin that financial advice groups might receive on fee rebates from the underlying fund managers, as well as model management fees and how these are used).

Finally, where financial advice groups are building internal managed portfolios and recommending them to their clients, the client’s best interest will need to be considered. This means advisers will need to ask themselves if an in-house solution is truly in the client’s best interest, and under what circumstances an alternative solution would be more appropriate.

Ultimately, a strong governance framework, careful management of any potential conflicted remuneration and a focus on the client’s best interests fall well within the spirit of the Royal Commission’s findings and are certainly relevant to the sphere of managed accounts. For advisers implementing managed account solutions, this is a topic that will continue to be raised as government, regulators and industry participants work to improve the quality of advice and bring it in line with community expectations.

As platform technology leads to further growth in the popularity of managed accounts, don’t be surprised if the vertical integration debate quickly changes to how advisers are using managed accounts and how conflicts are being managed.

The Royal Commission report will likely be seen as a key fork in the road for the superannuation industry. It highlights a number of issues, many of which have been known to the industry for some time, but more importantly it creates a clear imperative for industry players to take meaningful action to address them. The report and its recommendations cover both historical and structural issues that have been endemic to the industry, such as grandfathered commissions and duplicate accounts, but they also raise potential challenges that if not properly addressed could pose significant risks to sustainability in the future.

The solutions may involve a degree of complexity, and certainly they will not be implemented overnight, but they will be necessary to the future health of the system. Australia’s retirement industry is growing rapidly, and this is bringing greater sophistication but also inevitably additional layers of complexity that is not always easy for funds, members and regulators to navigate. Maintaining as much simplicity as possible while allowing members to benefit from greater innovation and a more dynamic retirement sector is the key challenge. Progress is being made but more needs to be done.

In particular we expect to see structural changes within many retail fund providers as they evolve their models for the future. MySuper product quality filters are expected to be lifted, which should help provide a more effective safety net for disengaged members. At the same time, with the changes in trustee expectations, we will undoubtedly see continued rationalisation in the number of providers in the market through fund mergers.

For consumers, the Royal Commission has highlighted the cost of not being engaged with your super. For many Australians, failing to engage and check in on their retirement savings may already have had an impact on their future retirement outcomes, whether through below-average returns, high fees, duplicate accounts, or inappropriate insurance. For every super member, getting engaged and taking an interest in how your retirement savings are managed is the best thing you can do. Ultimately, the success of superannuation depends on members having a stake in their own retirement.

On the financial advice side, the Royal Commission is proposing some important structural changes that should help create a better deal for advice clients. Combined with new education standards for advisers there should be an ongoing shift in quality, but a key challenge remains the high cost of providing advice, which is ultimately passed on to clients. Will financial advice become a luxury that only the few can afford, or can the industry evolve so that all those exposed to capital markets through their super can access affordable advice? This is a critical question and one that will require a balanced approach to ensure that members can get the certainty and comfort they need in retirement.

With a federal election due this year, and an early budget pegged for early April, the path to implementing these changes should become increasingly clear. The Royal Commission has revealed the deep desire Australians have to fix the system, but it is up to us to work through the changes. We have an opportunity to make real and lasting improvements that will make super more sustainable and hopefully create a better value proposition for members. But we cannot ignore the complexity of the task ahead. Success will mean balancing a number of competing goals – including cost, sophistication, choice and simplicity – while ensuring members understand what they need to do to get the most value from their super.

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry is mandatory reading for all super funds and their Trustees. It provides clear guidelines about the sale of financial advice and the purpose of MySuper products, as well as the simplification of insurance and more stringent benchmarking of service providers. This will result in a sweeping focus across organisations to ensure that strategic plans and KPIs are appropriately aligned and managed. The report clearly reinforces organisational responsibility as front and centre in the solution.

The impact of the Royal Commission for many in the industry will be lasting. The key takeout for many industry participants should be that most providers face challenges in some shape or form. We believe the true test of an organisation will be; if another commission (hypothetically) were to be held in 5 or 10 years’ time, will providers have had the foresight to seek out the issues of tomorrow and solve them, or will they be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We have identified three key areas highlighted in the report, which we believe will substantially shape the industry going forward.

1. Greater accountability for Trustees

With further consolidation across the industry inevitable, Trustees will need to have the processes in place to appropriately consider potential merger opportunities and ensure they are making decisions from a position of “best interests” and not “power/control”, or face being held accountable.

Further to this, the issue of appropriately assessing service providers, whether they are related to the entity or not, and holding them to account will also be vital in delivering optimal member outcomes. This will require ongoing uplift and oversight of service providers, to ensure that value is being delivered at all times.

For those Trustees that fail to adhere to their best interest duties, the Commissioner recommends the application of civil penalties. The challenge for funds, and their Trustees, will be on how to structure appropriate KPIs and remuneration structures, especially at Board and senior management levels, and whether they will have the capacity to deliver services with reasonable care and skill.

2. The challenges of assigning one default account

The report highlights the strong need for the industry to converge to its true membership base. SuperRatings remains supportive of one default account being created upon entry into the workforce, which we also highlighted in our submission to the Productivity Commission’s review. However, this is a deceptively complex challenge.

The report does not explicitly state what ‘machinery’ would be developed to ‘staple’ a person to a single default account. We believe there are three main approaches that could eventuate and note that each is not without substantial administrative and implementation challenges. Thus, it is not surprising that despite broad agreement across the industry, this initiative is yet to be executed. We envisage that an:

1. Employee could be defaulted into a fund attached to their first employer, with that becoming their superannuation fund for life. This could result in significant concentration of default flows to a handful of providers;

2. Employee could elect a superannuation fund when they apply for a TFN. Employees at this age may lack the skills to make an appropriate decision, so advice or guidance would be paramount;

3. Employee could continue to be defaulted into a fund attached to their employer, but a rollover of their existing accumulation account to the new super fund would need to occur each time their employment changed. This would increase the administration burden borne by superannuation funds but could expose employees to different superannuation providers throughout their working life.

Options 1 and 3 would still see the corporate play a role in determining a default super fund when arguably they don’t want the burden. Option 2 removes corporates from the decision-making process, but this option could spell the end of corporate super as we know it, and with it, the benefit of tailored solutions which are in the members’ best interest.

3. Key implications for Corporates

The report recommends ‘no treating’ of employers, this is effectively the corporate version of no hawking.  As such, funds will need to examine how to appropriately attract and service employers.

If corporates continue to nominate a default fund, the selection of this fund will need to be based on a robust framework. In lieu of set guidelines from the government, an assessment in-line with the member outcomes framework would be a potential minimum standard. We remain focused on the importance of reviewing investments, fees, advice, administration and governance arrangements as the pillars of a strong assessment of any fund.

The pricing models in this area should also give corporates pause for thought.  Reflecting on the commentary about the charging models for advice and mortgage broking, a range of pricing structures also exist in the corporate tender management space. Evidently, we believe best practice pricing in this space is an up-front fixed fee model. While this is a cost for corporates, we believe it brings significant long-term benefits for their employees that outweighs the initial cost.

Final thoughts

While the report may have lacked the theatre of the hearings, it has been clearly designed to address key issues identified by the Commission. As noted at the outset, we believe the key takeout for many industry participants should be that most providers face challenges in some shape or form. What providers do about them is the true test.

We are seeing providers act in advance of legislative change wherever practical, which is pleasing to observe. However, the path ahead for some will be more challenging than others. As historical issues are addressed, it will hopefully also provide an industry less divided across historical battlelines. Given the path forward in advice remains one of the most tricky to foresee, we hope that this will provide a key opportunity for these sectors to more effectively work together.

Despite the longest economic expansion in the country’s post-war history, few at the Bank of Japan would be celebrating. While official statistics indicate that the output gap is improving, inflation remains stubbornly low, forcing the Bank to maintain its stimulus program for longer than expected. Members voted in January to maintain the short-term interest rate target at 0.1% and lowered its inflation forecast for the fiscal year ending March 2019 from 1.4% to 0.9%.

Underlying price pressure is still weak despite an improving output gap

Source: Bank of Japan, Lonsec

Japan’s September quarter GDP growth was revised down to a contraction of 2.5% annualised from an initially reported fall of 1.2%. The downturn has been linked to a string of natural disasters, including flooding in July, a typhoon in September, and an earthquake in Hokkaido, all of which has affected exports and tourism.

The rise in the sales tax from 8% to 10% is due to come into effect in October 2019, and while it might provide an initial boost in consumption it is likely to prove crippling to consumer demand in the medium term and risks pushing the economy into recession (which is exactly what previous increases achieved). If there is any good news, it is that a rebound in business investment is likely to contribute to a recovery in the March quarter of 2019, but even a recovery could be vulnerable to the global slowdown.

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.