Lonsec has been working with financial advice firms for over 20 years and during this time we’ve observed a wide range of investment committee structures. The thing that stands out for us is the clear link between high-functioning investment committees and investment outcomes, with people and processes being the most essential elements financial advisers and dealer groups need to get right.

While it’s tempting to think of your investment committee as serving a narrow governance function and therefore requiring a narrow set of skills, the success of your investment committee depends on its ability to draw on a broad set of skills and backgrounds, including those who can bring an outsider’s perspective to your organisation.

So what are the critical things you need to consider to set up your investment committee for success? These are our top three:

1. There must be a critical mass of members

Determining the right size for your investment committee depends on the size of your organization and the types of investment decisions you’re making. For example, if you’re making asset allocation and security selection decisions, you must have people involved in your investment committee with the appropriate skill set and expertise. Having a small, tightly-controlled committee is not appropriate if you’re managing dynamic, multi-asset portfolios or where you’re taking an active role in selecting stocks. Its also essential that your committee allows for a diversity of views and opinions. The more voices you have on your committee, the more robust your investment decisions are likely to be.

2. Clearly defined roles are essential

It’s important for each member of the investment committee to have a defined role to ensure they’re contributing to their full capacity. Each role may be linked to a member’s area of expertise (e.g. asset allocation, equities, fixed income, alternatives, etc.). If there’s a knowledge gap in your investment committee, consider whether you have the internal capability to fill this role or whether it’s worth bringing in the right expertise from outside. Clearly defined roles help to ensure greater accountability and allow members to contribute in ways where they are adding the most value to your investment decisions.

3. External expertise can enhance performance (and credibility)

Most investment committees will draw upon external experts. This may be to fill in a gap in expertise but more importantly external experts will bring different perspectives and may even challenge the views of your organization. Within Lonsec’s own investment committee process we have two external experts on our investment committee who bring significant experience and a different set of skills to the management of our portfolios. Importantly, they contribute an ‘outside’ perspective and fill in potential blind spots. We don’t pretend to know everything, and our clients would probably be concerned if we claimed otherwise. If you’re offering your clients a high-quality, actively managed investment solution, then having external decision makers involved in the process can bring peace of mind and add intrinsic value to your service.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can determine exactly what your investment committee should look like, but there are things you can do to improve your investment decision making and the value of your advice. Ensuring that your investment committee consists of people with relevant experience, bring a diversity of views, and have a clear mandate should be at the core of your process. Ultimately, you want to harness the specialized skills of your own investment professionals while balancing these out with a broader range of views and perspectives to avoid group think or missed opportunities. Even the most hardened practitioners need to be challenged once in a while.

It’s a challenging time for asset allocators in the current environment, which has seen asset prices and market sentiment shift quickly on the back of a single tweet. Markets in July were generally strong across most assets, but August has seen a re-emergence of trade tensions between the US and China. More importantly we have seen the yield curve invert with the 10-year US treasury falling below the 2-year treasury for the first time since 2007, which, as you may recall from the text books, has historically been an indicator of economic weakness.

In an environment where markets can rapidly change tack it is important to have a framework to anchor your asset allocation process. At Lonsec we focus on asset valuations, the market’s position in the business cycle, and other factors such a liquidity and sentiment. In the current environment we continue to seek diversifying assets such as alternatives and from a bottom-up perspective we seek investments that have the mandates to perform in different market conditions. This will become increasingly important in a market that may be potentially more volatile than we have seen in recent years and where it is difficult to have clear line of sight of the geopolitical conditions and the extent to which central banks will continue to prop-up markets in the future.

From an asset allocation perspective our main active positions remain an underweight position to Australian equities and a positive tilt to listed infrastructure and alternatives. Asset price returns in recent years have been well in excess of our long-term expectations, which has been a positive outcome for clients. We believe that the environment going forward will be more challenging with asset valuations generally within the fair to slightly expensive range and business cycle indicators trending down.

The ECB’s announcement of further rate cuts was the last thing Europe’s banking sector wanted to hear. Since the depths of the eurozone crisis in 2009 and the sovereign and banking crises that followed, Europe’s banks have struggled to get back onto the right footing. Despite the introduction of new capital requirements and rules to reduce the risk posed by too-big-to-fail institutions, the equity value of banks has been in steady decline.

For Germany, the banking problem is embodied by Deutsche Bank, whose failed attempt to merge with its smaller competitor Commerzbank has forced it to abandon its long-standing dream of becoming a major Wall Street player. Its only choice now is to drastically scale back its operations. The story throughout the rest of Europe is not much better. European bank PE ratios relative to the overall market are at the lowest levels since the early 1990s.

Europe’s banks are under pressure


Source: IBES, Heuristics

The IHS Markit Eurozone Composite PMI suggests that, while the services sector has seen some pickup, manufacturing remains under pressure, and in Germany has fallen into contraction. The survey indicates that GDP in the eurozone is rising at a 0.2% quarterly rate. France and Germany are likely growing at 0.2%, while Spain is slowing to 0.4% (from around 0.7%) and Italy is contracting at a 0.1% rate. Business expectations over the next year have fallen to the lowest level in around four years.

While recent market gains may be predicated on the assumption that more monetary accommodation will help avert slowing economic growth, the situation possibly spells further pain for the banks. Central banks are now in easing mode once again, and while the Fed has yet to cut rates officially, this is the market’s strong expectation – and they don’t see the Fed stopping with just one.

12% of respondents believe the Fed will cut by more that 150 bps by 2021


Source: BofA Merrill Lynch FX and Rates Sentiment Survey

What this means is that investors looking for financial services exposure need to tread carefully. For the banks, lower rates tend to mean more pressure on lending margins, which acts as a headwind to growth. While a beaten down banking sector can spell opportunity for investors, from a portfolio perspective it’s essential to think carefully about what sort of exposure you’re looking for. For those seeking value in the banks, be prepared for a period of pain if the low rate environment continues.

Any value manager will tell you that the past 10 years has been a challenging period. Not only have growth shares outperformed, but the dispersion in price performance between the two styles is currently the widest it’s been over this period. Looking at the performance of the MSCI value and growth indices (see chart below), it’s tempting to conclude that value is all but dead.

Value is beaten down over the past decade

Value vs growth period returns, % p.a.

Source: FE, Lonsec

The reason for this dispersion starts to make sense when you think about what it is the value and growth investing styles represent. Value style investing seeks to identify companies trading below their intrinsic value. Value investors tend to be focused on long-term performance, believing that the companies they invest in will tend towards their intrinsic value over time.

Conversely, growth style investing focuses on companies whose earnings are expected to grow in excess of the market. Growth investors are typically willing to pay a premium for this growth, believing that the earnings trajectory will continue to rise and support equity prices. There are numerous studies suggesting that over the long-term the value approach outperforms growth, with well-known investors and academics such as Ben Graham and Warren Buffett being notable proponents of value style investing. The chart below compares the performance value and growth across the globe over a 20-year period

Value and growth are neck and neck over 20 years

Growth of $10,000

Source: FE, Lonsec

So why has value style investing lagged growth over the past decade? Like all things related to markets the answer is not simple, but there are some things we can point to. Firstly, the low interest rate environment which followed the global financial crisis in 2008 has benefited growth companies. Growth companies that are expected to grow their free cashflow in the future are typically more sensitive to interest rates, in a similar way to a long duration bond. With interest rates at low levels and continuing to fall in some markets, growth stocks have continued to perform well.

Secondly, global equity markets, including the US, have been fuelled by the strength of high growth sectors such as the technology sector with the so called FAANG stocks (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet), which have until recently driven a significant portion of US market returns. Australia is not to be outdone with its own version of growth darlings – the so-called WAAX stocks (Wisetech Global, Afterpay, Altium, Appen and Xero).

Increasingly, investors are questioning the ‘value’ of value style investing and whether it can deliver for investors in the current environment. The last time similar questions were asked was in the 1990s when markets were dominated by high-growth tech companies trading at high price-to-earnings multiples and investors were fearful of deflation. While the environment is different today (many tech companies are supported by actual earnings and interest rates are at record lows thanks to ‘unconventional monetary policy’), value investing is a long-term investment approach and will inevitably experience extended periods of relative underperformance versus growth.

It’s safe to say value is currently out of favour given the dispersion between value and growth stocks is widening. However, from a portfolio perspective, being over-exposed to a single factor or investment style can be risky if market conditions change. Being aware of your portfolio biases by engaging in deep investment due diligence on individual fund manager teams and investment products is a critical element when building a quality portfolio. Assuming that current market dynamics will continue into perpetuity is dangerous, particularly in a market where volatility is on the rise and the ‘status quo’ can shift rapidly.

Want to find out more?

Get in touch today to find out how we can help you start implementing managed portfolio solutions for your clients.

Call us on 1300 826 395 or email info@lonsec.com.au.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This document is published by Lonsec Investment Solutions Pty Ltd ACN: 608 837 583 (LIS), a Corporate Authorised Representative (CAR number: 1236821) of Lonsec Research Pty Ltd ABN: 11 151 658 561 AFSL: 421 445 (Lonsec Research).  LIS creates the model portfolios it distributes using the investment research provided by Lonsec Research but LIS has not had any involvement in the investment research process for Lonsec Research. LIS and Lonsec Research are owned by Lonsec Fiscal Holdings Pty Ltd ACN: 151 235 406. Please read the following before making any investment decision about any financial product mentioned in this document.

Disclosure at the date of publication: Lonsec Research receives a fee from the relevant fund manager or product issuer(s) for researching financial products (using objective criteria) which may be referred to in this document. Lonsec Research may also receive a fee from the fund manager or product issuer(s) for subscribing to research content and other Lonsec Research services.  LIS receives a fee for providing the model portfolios to financial services organisations and professionals. LIS’ and Lonsec Research’s fees are not linked to the financial product rating(s) outcome or the inclusion of the financial product(s) in model portfolios. LIS and Lonsec Research may hold any financial product(s) referred to in this document. LIS and Lonsec Research’s representatives and/or their associates may hold any financial product(s) referred to in this document, but details of these holdings are not known to the Lonsec Research analyst(s).

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 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. Before making an investment decision based on the rating 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 the financial advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of a particular financial product, the reader should obtain and consider the Investment Statement or the Product Disclosure Statement for each financial product before making any decision about whether to acquire the financial product.

Disclaimer: This document is not intended for use by a retail client or a member of the public and should 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 LIS.  Financial conclusions, ratings and advice are reasonably held at the time of completion (refer to the date of this document) but subject to change without notice. LIS assumes no obligation to update this document following publication. Except for any liability which cannot be excluded, LIS and Lonsec Research, their directors, officers, employees and agents disclaim all liability for any error or inaccuracy in, misstatement or omission from, this document or any loss or damage suffered by the reader or any other person as a consequence of relying upon it.

Copyright © 2019 Lonsec Investment Solutions Pty Ltd ACN: 608 837 583

It’s been an eventful month for markets. The Coalition’s Federal election win, the RBA’s rate cuts and a continuation of the US-China trade tensions have all impacted markets during the month of June. Domestic markets reacted positively to the Coalition win with some of the pessimism surrounding the housing market subsiding. The RBA’s rate cut was not unexpected with most analysts having already priced in the cut and potentially another.

Interestingly, the market narrative has turned to the possibility of the RBA undertaking a quantitative easing (QE) program domestically in a similar fashion to what we have seen in Europe and the US, whereby the RBA would buy government and corporate bonds using cash on its balance sheet. This would result in effectively flooding the market with liquidity while keeping rates low. Should rates continue their downward trajectory and QE become a reality, it may force investors into equities providing a tailwind for markets, as we have seen in Europe and the US in recent years. This is particularly relevant for retirees who may be forced into increasing their exposure to Australian equities as a source of income. The trade tensions between the US and China continue to adversely impact markets contributing to bouts of volatility. The longer the ‘trade wars’ the higher the probability that we will see longer-term impact on global growth.

These factors make it a challenging period for investors where factors other than market fundamentals are having a material impact in the trajectory of markets. In such an environment, we believe selective valuation opportunities will present themselves for long-term investors, however ensuring that your portfolio is diversified will be very important in navigating an increasingly volatile market environment.

In what has since been touted as ‘Miracle May’, investors welcomed the shock federal election outcome, which saw the Morrison government returned to power for another three years. The Monday following the election weekend saw the S&P/ASX 200 Index surge in a post-poll relief rally, adding approximately $33 billion to its market capitalisation in what was the single largest gain this year. Much to the embarrassment of the political pundits who had boldly claimed a Labor victory was inevitable, the Coalition managed to secure a majority government in the face of pessimistic opinion polls and betting markets.

Investors have experienced a mild reprieve from some of the recent negativity, while the more pessimistic scenarios have been tempered by upcoming tax cuts—equivalent to around 0.5% of GDP—along with the prospect of further rate cuts from the RBA, APRA’s move to lower the serviceability buffer for home loans, and the removal of downside risk associated with Labor’s tax policy. At the same time, strong commodity prices are boosting export receipts and the government’s fiscal position. However, global risks remain, highlighted by the RBA’s concern about the US-China trade war, and some not-so-subtle indications that the Australian economy is in need of some real structural reform to take the pressure off monetary policy.

Period returns to end May 2019 (% p.a.)


Source: FE, Lonsec

Leading up to the election, equity markets had fully priced in a Labor victory, which had placed significant downward pressure on valuations, in part due to the proposed overhaul of the current taxation laws. As such, when the ‘Messiah from the Shire’ was safely returned to the lodge, investors reacted with exuberance, which saw the S&P/ASX 200 TR Index generate a 1.7% return for the month of May. While in isolation this may seem uninspiring, contrast this with the MSCI World ex Australia NR Index (AUD Hedged), which fell -6.0% over growing concerns of a synchronised global slowdown in concert with the on-again, off-again escalating US-China trade war. Resultingly, Australia was the only advanced economy able to buck the trend during the month of May and enjoy gains in its equity market.

Broadly speaking, investors had shifted their asset allocation away from domestic equities in anticipation of the abolition of excess franking credit refunds. The reason for this was two-fold. Returns on fully-franked securities were anticipated to decline, which in conjunction with a static equity-risk premium necessitated a lower entry price to entice prospective investors. Furthermore, the existing system favours an overweight allocation to domestic equities due to the favorable taxation treatment for those in a zero-tax environment.

Logically, once this incentive is removed, capital outflows overseas will likely ensue. In tandem with this was the proposed halving of the capital-gains tax concession which would have significantly dinted the value proposition associated with investing in property and shares. As such, simply maintaining the status quo was enough to see an extensive re-rate across the market throughout May.

The Financials sector was one of the largest beneficiaries of the election outcome, with the ‘big four’ surging 6–10% on the Monday following the election. Once the animal spirits had subsided, this translated into a 2.6% gain for the S&P/ASX 200 Financials TR Index for the month. Labor’s proposed negative gearing limitations, CGT amendments, increased bank levies and more onerous restrictions on mortgage brokers had all coalesced into an unfriendly environment for future bank earnings. This is in stark contrast to the reform-shy Coalition, which was rewarded for sticking with the status quo. Given then Treasurer Morrison was opposed to a Royal Commission into Financial Services, it is perhaps unsurprising that this sector received a healthy post-election bump.

Likewise, A-REITs enjoyed a surge with the S&P/ASX 200 A-REIT TR Index achieving a 2.5% return for the month of May. This was again attributable to more sanguine housing market sentiment with the threat of proposed changes to negative gearing and CGT discounts now ameliorated. Specifically, Stockland, which is one of Australia’s largest diversified property developers, has since rallied 14% due to its large residential property exposure. The subsequent dovish pivot by the RBA, which cut interest rates to historic lows at its June meeting, has since provided additional tailwinds for the sector too.


Source: FE, Lonsec

Similarly, the Coalition government and health insurers are singing from the same hymn sheet, which saw the S&P/ASX 200 Health Care TR Index deliver 3.3% for the month of May. As above, the prospect of a Labor government mandating capped health insurance premiums and increased regulatory scrutiny had seen the likes of Medibank and NIB de-rate significantly prior to the election. However, following the surprise election announcement, Medibank and NIB subsequently shot the lights out and returned 11.5% and 15.8% at the close on Monday 17 May, respectively. More broadly, the perceived ability for the Coalition to demonstrate fiscal responsibility in the face of gathering economic storm clouds ushered in a 2.0% return for the S&P/ASX 300 Consumer Discretionary TR Index.

While it may have been ‘Miracle May’ for the Coalition and equity investors, unfortunately you can’t have winners without losers. Shareholders invested in Sportsbet’s parent company, Flutter Entertainment, were left aghast at the election result, given Sportsbet had presciently paid out on a Labor win. Equally, Clive Palmer has been left questioning his return on investment, following a $55 million advertising blitz that failed to deliver his party a single seat in parliament.

While miracles are always welcome by investors, unfortunately they are often unreliable when it comes to long-term, sustainable growth. While markets have received a nice boost, the weakness in Australia’s underlying position is difficult to ignore. The latest National Accounts data highlighted the extent of the slowdown, with quarterly growth just 0.4% and annual growth a meagre 1.8%. Households contributed just 0.1% to growth in the March quarter as heightened uncertainty, subdued confidence, and weakness in housing combined with still weak wages growth to constrain household spending. A miracle may have saved us in May, but we have to get through the rest of 2019 and beyond.

The possibility of the RBA undertaking a quantitative easing program could have major ramifications for retirees, who may be forced to increase their exposure to equities if interest rates continue to spiral downwards.
It’s been an eventful month for markets – the Coalition won the federal election in a surprise upset, the RBA cut rates to record lows, and US-China trade tensions re-emerged with a vengeance. Domestic markets reacted positively to the Coalition win, with some of the pessimism surrounding the housing market subsiding. The RBA’s rate cut was not unexpected, with most analysts having already priced in the cut and potentially another.

Interestingly, the market narrative has turned to the possibility of the RBA undertaking a quantitative easing (QE) program domestically, similar to what we have seen in Europe and the US. This would involve the RBA buying government and corporate bonds using cash on its balance sheet, effectively flooding the market with liquidity while keeping rates low. Should rates continue their downward trajectory and QE become a reality, it may force investors into equities, providing a tailwind for markets as we have seen in the US and Europe in recent years. This is particularly relevant for retirees, who may be increasingly forced to lift their exposure to Australian equities as a source of income.

While it’s difficult to know exactly what the relationship is between large-scale asset purchases and the stock market, evidence in the US and Europe suggests there is a positive correlation. The launch of QE in the US resulted in significant share market gains, in part because the market anticipated an improvement in macroeconomic conditions. Proponents of QE tend to be critical of the US Fed for undermining the effectives of the program through its forward guidance (which made the program less open-ended by emphasising the eventual exit from QE), as well as not going hard enough for long enough. Critics of QE claim that large-scale asset purchases inflate asset values, which can lead to a stock market bubble and greater inequality. Yet others believe that monetary policy is entirely fruitless, and fiscal policy is the only effective mechanism.

The precise effect of QE is difficult to determine. While some claim it has been responsible for lowering interest rates, the evidence suggests it might in fact have led to an increase in yields during those periods where it was in effect (see chart below). Bond purchases raise the price of these assets, resulting in a fall in yields, which negatively impacts the return of safe assets like Treasuries, high-quality corporate debt, and cash. This is bad news for retirees who rely on these safe assets to preserve capital or generate a secure income stream. However, if QE manages to raise expectations for long-term growth, this would lead to a rise in longer-term yields, reflecting the prospect for higher growth and inflation.

QE episodes in the US have coincided with a rise in the 10-year yield


Source: FRED, Lonsec

How seriously the RBA is considering QE is unknown, but given the challenges facing conventional monetary policy with interest rates nearing zero, it must be something the bank is thinking about. If the RBA does go down the QE path, it will be difficult to satisfy the critics on both sides of the QE divide. According to economist Stephen Kirchner, the US experience with QE suggests the RBA would need to buy securities equivalent to around 1.5% of GDP to achieve the same effect as 25 basis point reduction in the official cash rate. This would represent a QE program of significant scale for Australia.

If retirees are worried about QE, the RBA is likely just as reluctant to pull the trigger. The not-so-subtle comments from Phillip Lowe and others about the need for structural reform should be heeded by Canberra to avoid placing too great a burden on monetary policy. This is critical given the challenges facing the global economy, including the current trade tensions between the US and China, which continue to adversely impact markets and are contributing to bouts of volatility. The longer the trade wars drag on, the higher the probability that we will see a longer-term impact on global growth.

This is a challenging period for investors, where factors other than fundamentals are having a material impact on the trajectory of markets. In such an environment, we believe selective valuation opportunities will present themselves for long-term investors, however ensuring that your portfolio is diversified will be very important in navigating an increasingly volatile market environment. It’s also a timely reminder that complex macro issues can play a large role in determining the right asset allocation in retirement portfolios, which requires an experienced investment committee with a range of skills and knowledge. This is especially important when it comes to the construction of retirement portfolios, where complex macro issues can have dynamic effects on outcomes.

Markets continued their upward trajectory during April which has largely continued unabated since the so called ‘Powell Put’ earlier in the year, with the US Fed chair signalling a pause to further rate hikes. However, market volatility has picked up as the US-China ‘trade war’ has been reignited and the US seeks to precent Chinese telecom manufacturer Huawei from accessing US suppliers.

At the recent Lonsec Symposium, geopolitics was a key topic of discussion and specifically what it means for investors. While we would argue that basing investment decisions on geopolitical issues is problematic, understanding the broader implications of such issues is important, particularly if they have the potential to impact global growth. At a minimum it creates market volatility and, as evident in recent years, we believe that we are experiencing more frequent bouts of volatility attributed to geopolitical issues.

From an investment perspective, while we believe that most markets look to be priced at the fair to expensive range, pockets of relative value are appearing. An example of this is our current active tilt to emerging markets versus developed markets. We also continue to believe that alternative investments have a role to play within a portfolio as a source of diversification. While some parts of the broad alternatives sector have been challenged in terms of performance, if we head into a different market environment, accessing alternative sources of risk and return will become increasingly important. We have been also seeking to further diversify our Multi-Asset portfolio exposure to value style equities via active managed funds. While value has materially underperformed growth in recent years, the addition of a specialist value manager further diversifies the portfolios and, given that we believe that we are getting closer to the cycle, we will see more value opportunities appear.

Behavioural finance tells us that herd behaviour is hard wired into our brains. As investors we don’t want to miss out on opportunities, especially when we see others taking advantage of them. Herd behaviour and a fear of missing out is what drives asset bubbles, which means as investors we need to be on guard to ensure our emotions take a back seat when we make buy and sell decisions.

Investors are familiar with the FAANG stocks (for the uninitiated FAANG stands for Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google). Some of them are among the highest valued stocks in the world (Apple became the first company in the world to reach a market cap of $1 trillion but has since fallen below this level due to falling iPhone sales). In Australia we have our own acronymised technology cohort called the WAAAX stocks, which include WiseTech, Altium, Appen, Afterpay and Xero.

While hardly on par with the US tech giants in terms of size, these businesses have managed to capture people’s attention and imagination in a similar way. But like the FAANGs, the WAAAXs are certainly not a homogenous group. While each has seen eyewatering growth in recent years, they are essentially very different businesses with different growth drivers and risks.

WAAAXing fortunes

It’s sometimes easy to forget how parochial the Australian share market can be. The WAAAX phenomenon is undoubtedly a good thing, especially given that the ASX remains dominated by banks and miners. Australia’s tech sector may still be small, but its growth is helping to provide some much-needed diversification. While only 2.4% of the ASX 200’s total market cap, there are now 15 names in the tech sector with a combined market cap of over $75 billion.

WAAAX share price returns (12 months to end March 2019)

Source: FE, Lonsec

When you look at the stellar growth of these shares, it’s easy to see why they’re considered the Australian FAANGs. But how useful is it to group shares together in this way? Certainly in the US, the FAANGs don’t always behave as a group. While the return of risk appetite contributed to their strong performance in the March quarter, most were unable to make up for earlier losses due to the ongoing impact of idiosyncratic issues plaguing each stock.

Facebook continues to be scrutinised for their lax privacy policies, Amazon is facing a challenging earnings outlook, Apple’s revenue and product launches have fallen short of expectations, Netflix faces increasing pressure from new competitors, and Alphabet (Google) received another fine from the European Union for violating antitrust laws.

In Australia, the diversity of the WAAAX stocks poses a similar challenge for investors. To give a sense of how different these businesses are, let’s have a quick look at two of them: Appen and Afterpay. These are among the most popular shares over the past two years, but they have fundamentally different core businesses. For Appen, revenue is driven by the growth in AI and machine learning solutions, with Appen providing quality datasets that help make these products smarter. In contrast, Afterpay’s extraordinary growth has been due to the company’s ability to take advantage of a potential step change in consumer behaviour, with a younger generation of consumers favouring digital payments and more flexible spending.

Source: Lonsec

While these stocks are different, there is no denying the extraordinary growth of the WAAAX group, which is indicative of some of the disruptive trends taking place in the digital world. This is reflected in the sales and EBITDA growth of Afterpay and Appen, which becomes starker when compared to other popular sector peers Seek and Carsales. Clearly there are good reasons to be optimistic, but the question is how best to take advantage of these opportunities in your broader portfolio.

Source: FE, Lonsec

Using WAAAX shares in your portfolio – key things to note

When incorporating the WAAAX shares in your portfolio, the most important thing to remember is that they are not homogenous, which means you shouldn’t group them together. While these shares may grow together in a risk on environment, each face their own set of risks and opportunities which could see results diverge significantly.

The second thing to note is that these are capital hungry businesses with a mandate to grow, which means you should not expect a steady stream of hefty dividends. Because they are long duration assets, they will also be more sensitive to movements in interest rates.

Thirdly, while each of these stocks appears to enjoy significant upside, there are always risks around valuation and potential bubble-like behaviour. Valuing things like network effects can be difficult, while forecasting consumer trends and the role of AI require a host of assumptions to hold true. When it comes to technology, there is usually a significant degree of uncertainty involved, not to mention the regulatory risks faced by successful disruptors.

Our view of the WAAAX stocks is that you want to take advantage of the growth opportunities they represent, but don’t fall into the trap of bucketing them together. Understand the drivers of each business and let the winners run, but be sure to carefully monitor the market and regulatory risks of each business.

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.

When you ask clients how they think about risk in retirement, you are unlikely to get a textbook response. Instead, you’ll probably get a list of their deepest fears: running out of money, leaving their children with nothing, living too long, retiring during the next GFC, or not having enough cash on hand to pay for necessities.

When we define investment risks, we don’t define them in these terms, but these are the eventualities we’re attempting to guard against when we construct retirement portfolios. There are any number of objectives your client might be aiming to achieve, and each will come with their own set of risks.

Is it the chance of your investments going down? Is it asset class volatility? Is it not achieving the returns you need to meet your required income? In the end, risk is getting your investment strategy wrong by not understanding the relationship between your client’s competing objectives and associated risks.

For this reason, we believe there is a need to focus on retirement investing as a separate strategy. Even moving from the accumulation to the drawdown phase means you are managing a different set of trade-offs. The role of the financial adviser is not to eliminate the existence of these trade-offs but to manage them prudently in line with their client’s preferences and risk tolerance.

Source: Lonsec

Each of these competing objectives requires different investment strategies to achieve. For example, a rental property will provide the most consistent income but at the expense of liquidity. If we’re worried about market volatility we might be tempted to move to a more defensive asset allocation, but by foregoing growth we increase the chance of running out of money. In short, clients will always be exposed to various types of risk.

The problem with determining a client’s most important objectives is that often they are all equally important. Consider the following examples:

Paying the bills

Certainty of income is usually the key concern for retirees, but don’t discount the others. When you ask advice clients what their most important objectives are, the most common answers are things like relaxation, travel, family, and leisure. These all have a price associated with them. Liquidity is also a major consideration for retirees. Not having enough cash on hand for things like motor vehicle repairs and other essential spending can result in significant stress and prevent retirees from enjoying the things they were looking forward to after their working life.

Leaving a legacy

Most people wish to enjoy a comfortable life in retirement but also make sure their children and loved ones are left with some extra wealth. A 2017 ASFA study found that households are retiring with an average super balance of $337,000 (the gender breakdown is $270,000 for men and $157,000 for women). Leaving a meaningful inheritance or bequest would mean there is barely enough left over to support their own needs.

Maintaining purchasing power

As any basic economic textbook will tell you, different asset classes will perform better or worse in different inflationary environments. Inflation of 2% per year will erode more than half of your purchasing power over 35 years, which is the equivalent of a single GFC event. Managing inflation is just as important as managing sequencing risk or the risk of a large drawdown, even in periods where inflation is relatively low.

This adds an additional consideration to the construction of retirement portfolios. Real assets are a proven way of managing inflation risk, while fixed income is potentially the worst asset class for this purpose, with the exception of products like inflation-linked bonds.

Different assets perform differently depending on the inflationary environment

Source: Lonsec

Guarding against a crisis

If successfully timing the market seems more like luck than skill, then timing your retirement is no different. While market bumps are nothing to be feared when you’re building your wealth, a sudden major event like the GFC can spell disaster for those entering the decumulation phase. Sequencing risk refers to the order in which investors experience returns, and it can matter a great deal for retirement. Withdrawals during a falling market have the potential to accelerate the depletion of your asset base.

To see how this works, take a look at the returns from Lonsec’s balanced portfolio over the last 20 years. If you reverse the order of returns, there isn’t really much difference for those in the accumulation phase – both sequences deliver the exact same results over the long term. But for those drawing down on their investments, the reversed sequence results in the retiree running out of money much sooner.

The sequence of returns can mean the difference between having enough cash and running out

Source: Lonsec

Addressing sequencing risk requires advisers to look at a wider range of solutions, including variable beta or absolute return strategies, and even some more illiquid options to reduce volatility and manage drawdowns. Once again, there is a trade-off involved in making these decisions.

The reason we struggle to precisely define risk is that there simply isn’t a single source of risk that can be effectively managed or reduced to zero. Managing risk means understanding the often complex relationships between different retirement objectives. Effectively managing these relationships is the purpose of your investment strategy.

When we talk about risk at Lonsec in a portfolio context, what we are really talking about is the risk that the overall investment strategy is wrong or is not properly tailored to the client’s needs and preferences. This informs the approach we take to the management of our model portfolios as well as the selection of individual products to achieve a particular objective. We think this is the proper way to think about risk without being constrained by a single textbook definition, and it is the way in which advice clients intuitively understand risk as well.

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.