Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 374

Let’s clarify growth/defensive and move forward

There are many ways to measure exposure and risk. No single metric is perfect which is why professional risk managers use multiple measures of risk.

Many parts of the financial services industry classify portfolios based on a measure known as growth/defensive exposure. Growth/defensive has its fair share of flaws but it appears entrenched as an industry measure. However, there currently exists a one-off opportunity to improve the metric and make it standardised. All members of the investment community are encouraged to participate in the consultation currently open.

How do we use growth/defensive?

Growth/defensive exposure is used in many different ways, including:

  1. Research houses create super fund peer groups for performance comparisons, such as grouping together all funds classed as 60% growth/40% defensive.
  2. APRA’s Heatmap methodology assesses super funds by risk and return.
  3. Financial planners define growth/defensive categories to map clients to portfolios based on their risk tolerance.

For all its use in industry, growth/defensive remains undefined. As a result, there is a large degree of subjectivity, whether by industry when they self-assess or by groups such as APRA which has developed its own simple approaches, thereby introducing hard-coded subjectivity. These variations reduce confidence in any analysis produced using growth/defensive.

Industry attempts to standardise

Presently there is an industry-led project to create a standardised approach for assessing growth/defensive exposure to be used by all industry participants including regulators.

A working group (detailed here) was formed by volunteers from research houses and super funds. Following more than a year’s work, a proposed solution has been released for consultation.

Already there has been a high level of participation in the consultation process. Industry participants are encouraged to contribute and feedback will inform a better solution.

Consider the following puzzles:

  • If we followed traditional thinking that defensive assets are cash and bonds and growth assets are generally equities which participate in economic performance, where does that leave alternative investment products which can exhibit sizable risk, which could be independent of equities?
  • If we took a risk-based approach then should there be different scores among the universe of cash and fixed interest products, as they exhibit varying degrees of risk?

Pragmatism was the key to coming up with a solution. The working group stopped trying to come up with a definition (we accepted it as a hybrid measure of exposure and risk) and focused on the following:

  1. A quality measure that broadly reflects the risk/exposure consistently across different multi-asset portfolios
  2. A measure that doesn’t distort the portfolio decision-making process (compared to a decision made in a traditional risk/return framework)
  3. Manageable degree of operational impact.

We often found that these desires pulled against each other. Achieving a balance was the challenge.

Examples of growth/defensive asset scores

The proposed solution is outlined in the diagram below.

A couple of case studies help to illustrate the detailed scoring process:

Property and infrastructure. Fundamental criteria such as leverage levels and asset purpose (lower-risk income or higher-risk development) channel assets into two categories: Tier 1 risk (scored 60% growth/40% defensive) and Tier 2 risk (100% growth).

Hedge funds. The level of risk taken or targeted by the hedge fund is scaled to determine a growth/defensive score. Consider the simplified case of two hedge funds who target 6% and 12% volatility. Under our risk scaling approach, we scale the product volatility by 12% to determine that the two hedge funds would score 50% growth/50% defensive and 100% growth respectively.

Full details of the proposal are here.

It may be a healthy exercise for SMSFs to estimate their own growth/defensive score. The process we have detailed provides a healthy reminder that not all unlisted property has the same characteristics, that there is a huge dispersion among alternative investment products and that higher yielding credit can carry significant risk.

The working group was unable to incorporate portfolio diversification benefits into the solution. A variety of investments with different risk drivers should result in lower portfolio risk compared to the weighted sum of those individual risk exposures. But how do you standardise this calculation when there are so many investments?

Not being able to incorporate diversification benefits should be viewed as a limitation of growth/defensive as a risk measure. It serves as a reminder to those groups that use growth/defensive, including APRA, that the definition should be complemented by other approaches to measuring exposure and risk when undertaking analysis.

Feedback welcome

The aim is for a single industry solution and a standardised approach. At present the industry is under the microscope as never before. All feedback will be shared with the working group. The consultation paper is found here and the consultation closes on Monday 28 September.

Hopefully this will provide clear headspace for industry to move beyond growth/defensive and start using a variety of measurements to assess risk and performance. Thank you to the working group for all their contributions.

 

David Bell is Executive Director of The Conexus Institute, a not-for-profit research institution focused on improving retirement outcomes for Australians.

 

4 Comments
David Bell
September 10, 2020

I hope standardisation will improve accountability (it won't be perfect because growth / defensive is not without its flaws). But it will be easier for funds to understand how they are performing relatively and whether adjustments need to be made. There are potential challenges at both ends of the peer group tables: strong performing funds are sometimes viewed sceptically (perhaps fairly or unfairly), while poorer performers may claim it is because of how they categorise their assets (perhaps or perhaps not a valid claim). Better accountability will over time improve consumer outcomes.

Retired
September 10, 2020

This project falls at the first hurdle when it uses volatility as some sort of risk measure. The primary concern of the ‘senior savers’ I know is to firstly understand what part of the portfolio is ‘guaranteed defensive’ as we are not in a position to go back to accumulation mode. Everything else is therefore not defensive but some variant of growth/risky. Just define genuine defensive and forget about the rest, including the notion that a property can somehow be both defensive and growth - when its value falls the loss can not be apportioned?

David Bell
September 11, 2020

Thanks for your comment. I don't disagree with your view, but existing legacies prove constraining. While we think that consumers will indirectly benefit from better accountability provided by a standardised approach, I view this as a solution for industry more than a direct consumer solution. To give you some insight into the breadth of our work we did we develop a cash / defensive / growth framework, but when we consulted many of the people who use growth / defensive and have systems set up around it, they said this is a step too far. So how do we progress? I believe it is better to improve the growth / defensive measure while in parallel encouraging industry and regulators to explore, develop and implement other metrics.

Aussie HIFRE
September 10, 2020

It would certainly be very useful to have an industry wide standard of what counts as growth and what counts as defensive. Certainly at the moment there are a lot of industry super funds which claim to be "Balanced" but have up to 95% of their investments in what most people would call growth type investments. Completely unsurprisingly in an upmarket they then outperform retail funds which have only 50% in growth assets, or other industry funds with 70% in growth assets.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The 60/40 Portfolio – saying bye to old friends and welcoming new ones

The attacking defender: position for downturns with private debt

When defensive assets become indefensible, turn to tech

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Now you can earn 5% on bonds but stay with quality

Conservative investors who want the greater capital security of bonds can now lock in 5% but they should stay at the higher end of credit quality. Rises in rates and defaults mean it's not as easy as it looks.

30 ETFs in one ecosystem but is there a favourite?

In the last decade, ETFs have become a mainstay of many portfolios, with broad market access to most asset types, as well as a wide array of sectors and themes. Is there a favourite of a CEO who oversees 30 funds?

Australia’s bounty: is it just diversified luck?

Increases in commodity prices have fuelled global inflation while benefiting commodities exporters like Australia. Oftentimes, booms lead to busts and investors need to get the timing right on pricing cycles to be successful.

Meg on SMSFs – More on future-proofing your fund

Single-member SMSFs face challenges where the eventual beneficiaries (or support team in the event of incapacity) will be the member’s adult children. Even worse, what happens if one or more of the children live overseas?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Five features of a fair performance fee, including a holiday

Most investors pay little attention to the performance fee on their fund but it can have a material impact on returns, especially if the structure is unfair. Check for these features and a coming fee holiday.

Interviews

Ned Bell on why there’s a generational step change underway

During market dislocation events, investors react irrationally and it should be a great environment for active management. The last few years have been an easy ride on tech stocks but it's now all about quality.  

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Powers of attorney for your fund

Granting an enduring power of attorney is an important decision for the trustees of an SMSF. There are alternatives and protections to consider including who should perform this vital role and when.

Property

The great divergence: the evolution of the 'magnetic' workplace

The pandemic profoundly impacted the way we use real estate but in a post-pandemic environment, tenant preferences and behaviours are now providing more certainty to the outlook of our major real estate sectors.

Shares

Bank reporting season scorecard May 2022

A key feature of the May results for the banking sector was profits trending back to pre-Covid-19 levels, thanks to lower than expected unemployment and the growth in house prices.

Why gender diversity matters for investors

Companies with a boys’ club approach to leadership are a red flag for investors. On the other hand, companies that walk the talk on women in leadership roles perform better, potentially making them better investments. 

Economy

Is it all falling apart for central banks?

Central banks are unable to ignore the inflation in front of them, but underlying macro-economic conditions indicate that inflation may be transitory and the consequences of monetary tightening dangerous.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.