Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 5

Don’t spend your career further exposing yourself

 

Media Super, an industry fund for those in the media, creative and digital sectors, recently announced that it was investing in a financing facility for local film production. It is interesting to think this through, and lifecycle theory (see article in Cuffelinks 1 for an introduction to this subject) is a useful framework to apply.

In short, lifecycle theory is about maximising a lifetime of consumption and leisure. Our work, saving and consuming, and investment choices are the levers at our disposal. Of course there is much randomness as we don’t know how our lives and the world will pan out. However we can manage the risks we see. The alternative is the typical portfolio construction approach (commonly using mean-variance style techniques) where we focus on the portfolio outcome ignorant of other features of our lives.

One risk to consider is how our investment portfolio interacts with other risks in our lives. A key aspect is our income. It may be exposed to shocks, in particular unemployment, and part of the growth in our income will be linked to the performance of the employer, the sector and the economy as a whole. And income is important as it affects how much can be contributed to superannuation and other forms of savings.

Given that it is impossible to perfectly hedge risks to our income it makes sense to diversify such risks. Rather than focussing on the optimal way to diversify, let us first consider the three most obvious ways.

The first way would be to not invest in shares of the company you are employed by. If the company performs poorly your funds for retirement will be adversely affected at the same time that you may be exposed to the risk of being laid off or not experiencing pay increases. An unfortunate example of this comes from the US. In the US corporate 401(k) pension plans (their retirement savings vehicles), companies commonly had their own stock as an investment option. Many employees of Enron (the energy and commodities firm which turned out to be a major fraud) lost their jobs, entitlements and much of their retirement savings as they invested their 401(k) plans in company stock. This practice is still allowed in the US and in some cases employees continue to make large allocations to their own stock.

Why? A possible reason is behavioural: many people take comfort in the fact that they at least know their own company, although the majority of employees know little about valuing and buying their own company’s shares. In superannuation, people with their own SMSFs have the opportunity to directly manage this risk. It may be an area where financial advisers can add value to their clients, and it is an issue that trustees of corporate superannuation funds should think about.

Of course an alternative view is that executives should have ‘skin in the game’ and owners of small businesses will probably put most of their capital into their own business. These are special cases where either there are additional benefits (participation in high wages, bonuses, options etc), or small business owners have substantial inside information. For the average worker, their insight into the company they work for will not be significant.

A second approach would be to avoid investing in shares in the sector in which you work. For instance consider someone who works on the resources sector, where there is a high correlation amongst stocks within the sector. There is a risk that a collection of your investments may perform poorly at the same time as you experience income risk. Media Super is but one example. CBUS (an industry fund for construction and building services) and HOSTPLUS (hospitality, tourism, recreation and sport) both have investment exposures to the industries their members work in. I do not know of a single industry superannuation fund which has a policy to not invest in the industries from which their members draw their income. And yet this seems to be the best thing to do in terms of diversifying a key risk to lifecycle outcomes (and indeed a wonderful opportunity for industry funds to differentiate themselves from their retail counterparts who draw members from various industries).

Why doesn’t this occur? Well, industry funds may want to be seen to be supporting the sectors in which their members work. I remain unconvinced on the merits of this. Any individual industry fund represents a small amount of the total capital in the world and is unlikely to make a significant difference to the economic outcome of a sector. And if it is being done to be seen to be supporting the industry, then this is unjustified relative to the extra lifecycle risk being imposed upon members.

However the sector investments may be justified if they come with a higher return potential based on insights gained through the fund being associated with sector specialists. For instance, Media Super Chief Executive Ross Martin, with respect to the film industry investment, was quoted as saying,

"Members have earned a competitive return from this unique portfolio and the assistance from our industry partners has been invaluable for the scoping and due diligence required for this kind of alternative investment."

This benefit may well compensate for any increased concentration in risk to lifetime financial outcomes.

A third technique is to re-allocate from domestic equities to global equities. Academic research has shown that such an approach may be justified because the returns from global equities are less related to Australian economic conditions and thus a better diversifier to income risk. However Australian equities remain the largest asset class exposure across most superannuation default funds. Australian superannuation funds exhibit a home country bias, as do many retirement systems around the world. Once again there are reasons to explain this, some acceptable, some less so. One acceptable reason is the benefits of franking credits (as discussed by Chris Cuffe in Cuffelinks Edition 1).  Another reason may be taking comfort in the familiarity of Australian companies, but having some familiarity with an investment doesn’t offset its risk, and greater financial education may assist here. The final reason commonly cited is peer group risk, that it is risky to act differently than the peer comparison group. This is not acceptable as there is little evidence that managing peer group risk enhances member’s retirement outcomes.

This is an interesting example of how lifecycle theory, where we think about all the factors which may affect our outcomes, should lead to different portfolios for people working for different companies and industry sectors. And while I relate it back to theory (that’s the academic in me), it is all just common sense. Don’t put all your eggs in the one basket, or to stretch the idioms, don’t get your butter from where you earn your bread. In superannuation, SMSF’s have the greatest ability to specifically manage this risk, as they have complete investment flexibility. Financial planners should incorporate it into their risk assessment. This is an important issue for corporate superannuation funds to consider. And there is an exciting opportunity for industry funds to be more member-focused than retail funds.

 

 

  •   5 March 2013
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
Hugh Dive
March 11, 2013

Great piece on career exposure by owning your corporation’s own stock. It has always baffled me why you wouldn’t want to diversify you exposure to a single company.

When I was first starting out in finance a few of my colleagues bought stock in the large US-based bank we worked for, encouraged by the employer offering them a 10% discount to market price. My view was that we were just small cogs in the giant global corporation, with minimal insight into how the company was actually performing. Moreover due to the size of the organisiation, this insight could be somewhat akin to three blind people describing an elephant by touching it's trunk, feet and tail.

Jim
March 11, 2013

Enjoying reading your articles.

Warren Bird
March 12, 2013

Very good argument, David. In so many spheres there is a more holistic approach being taken - eg in health, more GP's are looking at the mental/psychological and spiritual aspects of a person's health, as well as the physical symptoms. Our investments are just one part of our overall life experience and should be evaluated in the context of all the others. Some people have done this in respect of their beliefs and ethical investments. I appreciate that you've given this a broader context. Surely the next phase for super funds providing a service to their members is to get away from the standard 'balanced' fund approach and offer them what each individual actually needs.

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

The hidden property empire of Australia’s politicians

With rising home prices and falling affordability, political leaders preach reform. But asset disclosures show many are heavily invested in property - raising doubts about whose interests housing policy really protects.

Preparing for aged care

Whether for yourself or a family member, it’s never too early to start thinking about aged care. This looks at the best ways to plan ahead, as well as the changes coming to aged care from November 1 this year.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Latest Updates

A speech from the Prime Minister on fixing housing

“Fellow Australians, I want to address our most pressing national issue: housing. For too long, governments have tiptoed around problems from escalating prices, but for the sake of our younger generations, that stops today.”        

Taxation

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

Exchange traded products

Multiple ways to win

Both active and passive investing can work, but active investment doesn’t in the way it is practised by many fund managers and passive investing doesn’t work in the way most end investors practise it. Here’s a better way.

Economy

The Future Fund may become a 'bad bank' for problem home loans

The Future Fund says it will not be paying defined benefit pensions until at least 2033 - raising as many questions as answers. This points to an increasingly uncertain future for Australia's sovereign wealth fund.

Investment strategies

Managed accounts and the future of portfolio construction

With $233 billion under management, managed accounts are evolving into diversified, transparent, and liquid investment frameworks. The rise of ETFs and private markets marks a shift in portfolio design and discipline. 

Property

Commercial property prospects are looking up

Commercial property is seeing the same supply issues as the residential market. Given the chronic undersupply and a recent pickup in demand, it bodes well for an upturn in commercial real estate prices.

Infrastructure

Private toll roads need a shake-up

Privatised toll roads in Australia help governments avoid upfront costs but often push financial risks onto taxpayers while creating monopolies and unfair toll burdens for commuters and businesses.

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.