Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 330

Three key outcomes needed from the Retirement Income Review

The recently announced Retirement Income Review terms of reference detail the three pillars on which Australia’s retirement income system is based – age pensions, compulsory superannuation and voluntary savings. This paper focuses on the second pillar, superannuation.

There are three key outcomes that can be met by the Retirement Income Review:

  1. Further develop the risk adjusted returns disclosure arrangements criteria to assist retirees in understanding the risks inherent in retirement income products.
  2. Encourage the development of a variety of risk management approaches with the objective of improving risk adjusted returns for retirees. 
  3. Develop guidelines for ‘alternative – conservative’ and ‘alternative – growth’ asset classifications, based upon the risk level rating and in particular the product’s ability to address sequencing risk.

1. Risk adjusted returns disclosure

The December 2018 Australian Government Actuary Paper ‘Retirement Income Risk Measure’, discusses a range of standard metrics to help consumers make decisions about the most appropriate retirement income product for their own circumstances.

It is noted that:-

“…behavioural economists commonly point out that individuals are more averse to downside variation than upside variation. Intuitively this would apply to retirement incomes. For this reason, I have chosen to focus on quantifying downside risk and using that to measure the relative ‘income risk’ of various products.”

The Actuary’s advice says on page 6:-

“The proposed presentation for the fact sheet is a scale of one to seven referencing ‘income security’. A high number on the scale would indicate expected income is stable and reliable, higher risk products would equate to a low level of security, so a lower number on the scale ...

The income security measure takes account of inflation, longevity and market risk. For consumers these risks may be of different values. For example, a consumer who is concerned about whether their income varies due to market forces may want to know whether the product protects them from this particular risk.”

The much-discussed 'Comprehensive Iincome Product in Retirement' (CIPR) would provide a complete solution that balances a number of competing objectives. The three key retirement objectives are to maximise income, ensure income is provided for life and provide flexibility to access capital.

The Review provides the opportunity for industry to critically review the Treasury analysis of CIPR and observations on the proposed risk objectives (including any suggestions on how the approach could be improved). This process may enhance the risk metrics ratings products will receive on their ability to address longevity risk, market risk, sequencing risk and inflation risk.

2. Encourage the development of a variety of risk management approaches

There are a variety of investment risk management approaches with the objective to meet the equity income needs of retirees and defend against losses in declining markets.

Typically, the investment generates dividends from a diversified portfolio of Australian shares with an investment risk management overlay that aims to reduce the volatility of returns, in particular defending against losses in declining markets.

A brief summary of the approaches is as follows:

  • Vary asset allocation between stocks and bonds (diversification)
  • Buy underlying asset, write call options (buy-write income funds)
  • Long/short funds (market neutral, 130/30)
  • Buy underlying asset with the ability to sell futures contracts
  • Buy put options and hold cash
  • Buy underlying assets, buy put options (always include a ‘hard’ risk parameter)

These approaches are adopted by Russell Investments, State Street and Gyrostat (amongst others).

By developing clear evaluation criteria, industry will likely continue to develop innovative risk-managed investment approaches. It is likely that through the combination of these approaches, retiree solutions that maximise risk adjusted returns can be developed, with external providers becoming a component part of the retirement product if these are ‘best of class’ addressing a particular component of risk.

3. ‘Alternative – defensive’ and ‘alternative – growth’ classification criteria

For a product to be classified as ‘alternative – defensive’ it must address sequencing risk. Sequencing risk is the risk that the order and timing of investment returns in unfavourable, resulting in less money for retirement. If the benchmark used by a fund has experienced significant drawdowns, it does not address sequencing risk, and would be an ‘alternative – growth’ classification with a lower risk rating.

The marketing literature of many funds attracting retiree investors typically show:

  • Income feature
  • Return feature over specific time periods
  • Relative performance versus selected index over specific time periods

Rarely do they report the maximum capital drawdown since inception. Given that the fund’s objective is to outperform a chosen index, the underlying investment may be exposed to large losses in the event of a major market correction. The protection element is reflected in the fund's maximum capital draw-down.

Many doubt the Review will focus on such definitions, as the super industry has struggled to deliver consistent standards to define growth or defensive assets.

Conclusion

The desirable retirement income product features combine protection, returns and regular income through all stages of the investment cycle, including large market falls. The Retirement Income Review can make positive contributions towards this objective and ultimately meet the policy objective to enable retirees to maintain their standards of living when they retire from the paid workforce or reach the retirement age.

 

Craig Racine is Managing Director of Gyrostat Capital Management. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

A defining year for super requires your input

CIPRs are coming and that’s exciting

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.