Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 309

Where to now for adequate investment returns?

US economist Frank Knight was the first to draw a distinction between 'risk' and 'uncertainty' in his 1921 book, ‘Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit’.

Risk is what many investors in portfolio construction address, using statistics like expected mean returns, standard deviations and cross-asset correlations.

Uncertainty, according to Knight, is when you simply do not know what could happen, when even the basic parameters are unknown.

The impact of new technology in retailing, for example, is not just a risk for the retail property industry, but fundamental uncertainty. In the same way, the fact that global monetary policy is in unchartered waters means that the problem investors face is not just risk, but uncertainty.

Furthermore, risk models may not work if the environment in the future is fundamentally different to the recent past. Therefore, uncertainty and backward-looking risk models in a changing environment are both critical today.

Today’s main 'uncertainty' problem is extreme low rates

Our starting position is unusual and extreme. Balance sheet recessions in the Northern Hemisphere have resulted in the lowest rates in recorded history in the United States, Japan, the Euro zone, and the United Kingdom in this cycle. These extraordinary rates are the result of balance sheet recessions that followed debt-fuelled property booms.

Given that Australia’s residential prices peaked higher than those in the United States, Euro zone and United Kingdom and that Australia’s household debt is higher than household debt in those countries, Australia may also experience a balance sheet recession. Under that scenario, rates will move even lower than they are now, despite the cash rate reduction to 1.25% this week.

There is also the opposite (and recently forgotten) risk of inflation. All of these northern countries have engaged in non-standard monetary theory, such as quantitative easing. In the United States, there is also late-cycle fiscal stimulus and speculation about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), a new acronym for an old idea: the government printing money to spend it.

The established theory in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was that a combination of large government deficits and money printing was the best way to generate high inflation. Yet the example of Japan, where despite extraordinary fiscal and monetary stimulus, inflation has still not emerged, means that MMT is no longer viewed as the best theory of inflation.

In fact, today, we do not have one agreed theory of inflation, which is why some government officials advocate experiments like MMT. The risk is, of course, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that if you print money to spend it, inflation eventually arrives and presents the bill.

Portfolio implications and will bonds defend?

In a world of risk and uncertainty, where can investors go to generate adequate returns?

In recent years, bonds have proved to be a successful hedge to falling equity markets, but this is not always the case.

During the GFC, the 1990 recession and the 1987 stock market crash, bonds provided decent off-setting diversification. When the equity market lost a third its value, the bond market, as represented by the 10-year Australian bond delivered about 19%.

But before the great bond bull market that started in 1983, things were different. In the late 1960s, in 1974 and in the 1980 market downturns, equity markets lost about a third of their value, but bonds lost around 14% of capital value and also recorded a negative total return (see table). Given the starting point, the last 35 years may not be the best guide to the future.

The second concern is that from the current starting point of the Australian 10-year bond yield of 1.53%, (as at 29 May 2019), the gains from bonds will be mathematically limited, considering the yield is already near historic lows.

Today’s problem: bonds do not always play defense

investment returns

investment returns

Source: FactSet, MSCI, Standard & Poors.

Today, the experiences of the last 35 years may not be relevant, with economic models calibrated with decades of past experience perhaps falling into the same trap that caught those valuing mortgage backed securities in 2007.

Think outside the box

If the outlook for bonds is uncertain, asset allocators may have a major problem. Modern asset allocation frameworks are often built on the premise that bonds will act as the defensive part of the portfolio.

Indeed, certain asset allocators may need to re-think their entire portfolio. Equities will have to play a role for the equity yield and the long-term growth. They offer income and inflation protection. However, the benefits come with risks, and some investors may need to think more about their equity exposure and their defensive properties if trouble strikes.

The lesson is that even the growth portion of a portfolio may need to offer defensive properties.

Uncertainty not risk

Risk is often measured on backward looking statistical measures, but this may not offer a guide to the future. The behavior of an asset class at some time in the past, does not mean that it will always behave that way.

In our view, equities are needed for inflation protection and income, and the risk of capital loss from owning equities can be limited by focusing on valuation and more defensive (sustainable yield) equites, given that cash (and not bonds) is the only perfect defensive asset.

 

Philipp Hofflin is a Portfolio Manager and Analyst on the Australian Equity Team with Lazard Asset Management. His views may not represent those of other portfolio management teams at Lazard Asset Management. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Creating a bulletproof investment portfolio

The challenges of building a portfolio from scratch

Protecting retirement income from inflation shocks

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.