Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 113

Risk aversion in practice in large funds and SMSFs

Risk aversion is a complex issue which I have previously discussed (see ‘There’s more to risk aversion than most planners realise’). Across the super fund industry, I see many intriguing case studies, and managing for these challenges is important for both large funds and SMSFs. As superannuation assets under management continue to grow, more people will need to decide how they think about risk aversion.

A quick refresher on risk aversion

Financial risk aversion defines our attitudes to taking financial risk. In academic literature risk preferences can take many forms, including absolute risk aversion and relative risk aversion – it is these two on which I focus in this article. Absolute risk aversion means that our risk aversion relates to a dollar amount. Relative risk aversion means that our risk aversion relates to a percentage of our portfolio. So as a portfolio grows in size, all else equal, an individual whose risk preferences take the form of absolute risk aversion would prefer to shift into a less aggressive portfolio while an individual whose risk preferences take the form of relative risk aversion would not change their investment strategy. It’s an important distinction.

A 1% loss is easier to take than $1 billion

Mark Delaney is the highly regarded CIO of Australian Super, the largest super fund in Australia with in excess of $90 billion in assets. But Mark will likely have an undesired record: the first Australian super fund CIO to lose $1 billion in a day. Of course this should not reflect poorly on Mark as it is largely a function of the large assets under his management.

How do super fund CIO’s, and indeed managers of any large asset pools, deal with numbers of this size? In my case I have many days where the funds I manage make or lose $50 million. Clearly the mindset needs to be one of relative performance. A 1% loss sounds more digestible than $1 billion! Relative risk aversion is probably the preferred lens through which risk is interpreted in this instance. If CIO’s were focused on the absolute numbers then we are talking big numbers which will only become larger.

Let’s consider the case of someone with an absolute risk aversion mindset. I once worked with a proprietary trader who consistently returned an excellent profit on a small capital base. The bank noted his good return on capital and doubled his capital. The trader’s percentage risk levels halved and he made the exact same dollar profit as before! This is a case of very strong absolute risk aversion in practice.

What if a super fund CIO had absolute risk aversion tendencies? As their fund grows they would be inclined to take the same amount of dollar risk and thus the percentage risk would drop. This could well be to the detriment of the fund’s members who require growth to achieve their retirement outcomes. Is there a place for an absolute risk aversion mindset amongst super fund CIO’s? I would argue not: after all super funds are managing pooled funds on behalf of many members. The risk taken on their behalf should not be influenced by the overall size of the fund. Though I do not love the fact that the industry remains so peer group focused, this represents one positive aspect. Peer grouping ensures that super funds consistently take the amount of risk that the industry deems necessary to take the lead to achieve retirement outcome goals (whether this is the right amount of risk is the big issue for another day!). Effectively peer grouping forces a relative risk aversion mindset.

So are super funds consistent in their application of a relative risk aversion mindset across all of their business? I believe there are inconsistencies. For example I met a director of a super fund recently who was talking about delegation of decision-making. The director found it hard to delegate any decisions, even on a small proportion of the overall portfolio, to the investment team because the dollar size was very large. Clearly this suggests absolute risk aversion characteristics. A mismatch of the form of risk aversion preferences across super fund executives and directors could lead to less effective decision-making and unnecessary tensions.

It is important to note the role of media, too. The media like to attract attention. If we return to our Mark Delaney example, which is more likely to attract readers: “Australian Super loses 1% in a day!” or “Australian Super loses $1 billion in a day!”? Clearly the latter – which suggests that media by necessity has an absolute mindset. As super funds grow in size the risk of adverse media increases, which in itself risks a bad reaction by super funds.

Risk in SMSFs

The issue of appropriate risk preferences is not as clear cut for SMSF trustees. The key difference is that an SMSF is most commonly established for a single or a couple. In this sense the account could be viewed as a personal or joint savings account and so elements of relative risk aversion and absolute risk aversion could both be relevant.

It could be important to maintain a percentage level of portfolio risk as the fund grows in size because this is necessary to grow the asset pool to support the desired retirement outcome. However an absolute mindset may come to the fore as the absolute size of gains or losses could be felt quite tangibly by the SMSF trustee in terms of the impact on their retirement outcome.

What if an SMSF has strong absolute risk aversion tendencies? They might reduce risk as their fund grows in size. This risks the fund not growing as much as is necessary to achieve targeted retirement outcomes. An SMSF trustee could also consider some risk scenarios. For example “I stand to lose $50,000 if CBA shares drop to $60. Perhaps I should diversify into other Australian stocks.” An absolute risk aversion mindset potentially leads to more technical risk management mistakes of diversifying the portfolio into areas where the trustee may have less conviction while also not realising that the SMSF would remain heavily exposed to a drop in Australian shares.

Conclusion

Risk aversion is a complex but fascinating area where there is still much to learn. The examples highlighted demonstrate that both relative and absolute risk aversion preferences exist in industry and among SMSFs. There are risks to the effective operation of both large funds and SMSFs in not understanding their own biases. For large super funds the main risk could be inefficiency and tensions due to a mismatch of risk preferences amongst key staff. For SMSFs a strong absolute risk aversion could stop retirement goals being reached and be a catalyst for other risk management mistakes.

 

David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at AUSCOAL Super. He is working towards a PhD at University of New South Wales.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

There’s more to risk aversion than most planners realise

ATO to shine spotlight on poor SMSF investment data

Labor's franking policy is a ticking bomb for all super funds

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

How to enjoy your retirement

Amid thousands of comments, tips include developing interests to keep occupied, planning in advance to have enough money, staying connected with friends and communities ... should you defer retirement or just do it?

Results from our retirement experiences survey

Retirement is a good experience if you plan for it and manage your time, but freedom from money worries is key. Many retirees enjoy managing their money but SMSFs are not for everyone. Each retirement is different.

A tonic for turbulent times: my nine tips for investing

Investing is often portrayed as unapproachably complex. Can it be distilled into nine tips? An economist with 35 years of experience through numerous market cycles and events has given it a shot.

Rival standard for savings and incomes in retirement

A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA 'comfortable' level of retirement savings and it amounts to 'fearmongering' by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.

Dalio v Marks is common sense v uncommon sense

Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted 'second-level' thinking is needed for superior returns.

Fear is good if you are not part of the herd

If you feel fear when the market loses its head, you become part of the herd. Develop habits to embrace the fear. Identify the cause, decide if you need to take action and own the result without looking back. 

Latest Updates

Economy

The paradox of investment cycles

Now we're captivated by inflation and higher rates but only a year ago, investors were certain of the supremacy of US companies, the benign nature of inflation and the remoteness of tighter monetary policy.

Shares

Reporting Season will show cost control and pricing power

Companies have been slow to update guidance and we have yet to see the impact of inflation expectations in earnings and outlooks. Companies need to insulate costs from inflation while enjoying an uptick in revenue.

Shares

The early signals for August company earnings

Weaker share prices may have already discounted some bad news, but cost inflation is creating wide divergences inside and across sectors. Early results show some companies are strong enough to resist sector falls.

Property

The compelling 20-year flight of SYD into private hands

In 2002, the share price of the company that became Sydney Airport (SYD) hit 80 cents from the $2 IPO price. After 20 years of astute investment driving revenue increases, it sold to private hands for $8.75 in 2022.

Investment strategies

Ethical investing responding to some short-term challenges

There are significant differences in the sector weightings of an ethical fund versus an index, and while this has caused some short-term headwinds recently, the tailwinds are expected to blow over the long term.

Investment strategies

If you are new to investing, avoid these 10 common mistakes

Many new investors make common mistakes while learning about markets. Losses are inevitable. Newbies should read more and develop a long-term focus while avoiding big mistakes and not aiming to be brilliant.

Investment strategies

RMBS today: rising rate-linked income with capital preservation

Lenders use Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities to finance mortgages and RMBS are available to retail investors through fund structures. They come with many layers of protection beyond movements in house prices. 

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.