Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 93

Some challenges ahead for 2015

It has been another challenging year for superannuation, including for industry regulators, market professionals, fund administrators and trustees managing an SMSF. We have seen the completion of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) as well as mixed economic and market conditions. Here are three challenges I am most focused on heading into 2015.

1.  Are equity markets cheap or expensive?

For anyone involved in investment management, the issue of whether equity markets are cheap or expensive is nearly always front of mind. How can the issue of valuation not be clear-cut? The answer is simply that there are many definitions of value. Key for me is whether we should put more emphasis on outright or relative (to other asset classes) value measures.

There are many charts (including the one at left below) which consider outright asset class value. A simple example is a price-to-earnings ratio (Shiller’s well-known CAPE) which at present suggests that equities look expensive. The alternative relative value (to bond yields) approach, presented in the right chart below, suggests that equities are offering a premium above bond yields close to their long term average.


Source: Robert Shiller, Yale University

Many market participants focus on outright value measures, yet the relative value approach has merit as it focuses us on where the best return on capital is available. When the two approaches contrast, we are faced with determining whether a market is good value or not.

2.  Financial literacy and the Standard Risk Measure

I’ve previously raised concerns about the ability of APRA’s Standard Risk Measure to inform the public of prospective investment risk (see Cuffelinks article Is APRA’s Standard Risk Measure helpful? for more detail). This statistic was devised in consultation with industry bodies ASFA and FSC and has recently returned to the forefront when Pauline Vamos, CEO of ASFA, commented in her keynote speech at the ASFA Conference that they acknowledge there has been criticism and they are open to ideas of a better measure (for a good summary of Pauline’s speech see Sustainability of the super system in a time of disruption).

Who will be using and relying on this information and will they benefit?

  • For the financially illiterate (meaning those who don’t understand compounding, inflation and time value of money), a measure of risk will not really help them – they need education and advice. The financially illiterate likely make up the majority of the population (potentially 60% as explored in Do clients understand what advisers are saying?)
  • No single industry professional worthy of the title ‘professional’ would rely on a single measure of risk. They would consider risk in many different ways through both quantitative and qualitative lenses.

It is hard to identify the beneficiary of the limited information provided by the Standard Risk Measure. Perhaps the real leadership opportunity for industry bodies such as ASFA is to be firmer in their feedback to APRA that such a measure can make the uninformed feel dangerously well-informed. The risk section of a PDS could clearly state that one should consider all facets and dimensions of risk and the Standard Risk Measure should not be the sole assessment of risk.

3.  Super funds and post-retirement design

The FSI made recommendations regarding a retirement outcomes focus (for Cuffelinks’ summary of the Final Report see David Murray moves the goalposts), such as:

  • seek broad political agreement for the overall objectives of superannuation, since super does not have a consistent set of policies
  • super funds should provide retirement income projections for members to improve engagement
  • trustees of super funds should select a comprehensive income product for retirement (CIPR) for their members, effectively pooling risk to ensure income throughout retirement.

The first point is well made. The FSI has established its own baseline objective:

“To provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension.”

Unfortunately what is missing here is specific guidance as to the trade-off between the level of income and the variability and security of that income. Some of the models used by academics are highly relevant; the question is whether regulators and industry could understand these powerful but complex models.

Retirement outcome modelling is full of variability which is difficult to model – variability in return outcomes and mortality outcomes are just two of many sources (see How much variability exists in retirement outcomes? for further discussion). However without such a tool (which I call an ‘outcome engine’), we cannot deliver on the final two points listed above in a fully-formed manner.

Consider member projections first; all member projections at present, even those provided by ASIC, are primarily focused on expected outcomes. This means the projection information provided to individuals (many of whom may be financially illiterate) is roughly 50% likely to be achieved (or 50% likely to not be achieved). Is that an appropriate basis on which to provide such information? For me this type of information on retirement projections has eerily similar shortcomings as the Standard Risk Measure…

The design of the CIPR will be a less than perfectly-informed decision by trustees in the absence of a highly-specified outcome engine to assist with the decision making process. Most trustees would have to rely on gut feel to make their decision on the most appropriate CIPR specification. The post-retirement product space is constantly evolving, but without a powerful outcome engine to assess the benefits of innovations, I feel trustees will be left exposed.

FSI complexity is in the implementation

The recommendations around retirement outcomes in the FSI have merit but implementation will be complex. A simpler solution would have been an additional regulatory requirement for super funds to have an outcome engine which considers all relevant sources of retirement outcome variability in place as a component of their product design processes within three years.

There is a real leadership opportunity for super funds to bring the appropriate skills into their businesses to develop their own outcome engines. While I have previously discussed this issue (see ‘Outcome engines’ should be the heart of your business) the FSI Report only confirms my belief that outcome engines will be a top three business issue for the leading super funds for the next five years. This is one of the best opportunities for worthwhile collaboration between industry and academia.

Wishing everyone all the best for the festive season and 2015.

 

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

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Pros and cons of Labor's home batteries scheme

Labor has announced a $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program, aimed at slashing the cost of home batteries. The goal is to turbocharge battery uptake, though practical difficulties may prevent that happening.

Howard Marks: the investing game has changed

The famed investor says the rapid switch from globalisation to trade wars is the biggest upheaval in the investing environment since World War Two. And a new world requires a different investment approach.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 606 with weekend update

The boss of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, UniSuper’s John Pearce, says Trump has declared an economic war and he’ll be reducing his US stock exposure over time. Should you follow suit?

  • 10 April 2025

4 ways to take advantage of the market turmoil

Every crisis throws up opportunities. Here are ideas to capitalise on this one, including ‘overbalancing’ your portfolio in stocks, buying heavily discounted LICs, and cherry picking bombed out sectors like oil and gas.

An enlightened dividend path

While many chase high yields, true investment power lies in companies that steadily grow dividends. This strategy, rooted in patience and discipline, quietly compounds wealth and anchors investors through market turbulence.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Investment strategies

Does dividend investing make sense?

Dividend investing offers steady income and behavioral benefits, but its effectiveness depends on goals, market conditions, and fundamentals - especially in retirement, where it may limit full use of savings.

Economics

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Strategy

Ageing in spurts

Fascinating initial studies suggest that while we age continuously in years, our bodies age, not at a uniform rate, but in spurts at around ages 44 and 60.

Interviews

Platinum's new international funds boss shifts gears

Portfolio Manager Ted Alexander outlines the changes that he's made to Platinum's International Fund portfolio since taking charge in March, while staying true to its contrarian, value-focused roots.

Investment strategies

Four ways to capitalise on a forgotten investing megatrend

The Trump administration has not killed the multi-decade investment opportunity in decarbonisation. These four industries in particular face a step-change in demand and could reward long-term investors.

Strategy

How the election polls got it so wrong

The recent federal election outcome has puzzled many, with Labor's significant win despite a modest primary vote share. Preference flows played a crucial role, highlighting the complexity of forecasting electoral results.

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.