Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 19

Historical real return outcomes based on current default portfolios

In my last article I explained how real returns are the most crucial measure of investment outcomes for an individual saving for retirement. It follows that the crucial measure of risk is the volatility of real returns. Yet most super funds do not explicitly manage for real returns and real return risk. Regulators and industry reviews provide little guidance on this issue and super fund trustees need to provide greater leadership on this important issue.

One possible explanation for the focus on nominal return outcomes is that the Superannuation Guarantee was created around the same period as the RBA introduced inflation targeting. Over this period inflation has been relatively low and consistent. In such an environment the volatility of real returns will be similar to the volatility of nominal returns and so the need to manage real return risk may not be apparent. What we need to consider is the risk that inflation will not always be consistently low. This article explores real outcomes using a much longer data set.

What was worst period for performance?

To illustrate, a trivia question: Over the last 100 years, assuming we maintained similar asset mix to that used in portfolios today (30% Australian equities, 30% global equities, 30% Australian nominal bonds and 10% cash), what would have been the worst period for performance of retirement savings? Many of us might say the Global Financial Crisis or the Great Depression, but both answers are wrong. You would have been on the money if you were thinking about nominal returns, but if you are focused on real outcomes, the driver of retirement outcomes, then the story is quite different. In the chart below I illustrate both real and nominal outcomes in terms of drawdown (the largest cumulative loss experienced in account value, both nominal and real). Because this chart only focuses on cumulative losses, it cannot go above zero.

DB Real1

DB Real1

Diagram 1: Simulated historical drawdowns for default portfolios (nominal and real outcomes). Source: Schroders; “Why SAA is Flawed,” March 2012, Schroder Investment Management Australia

Diagram 1 illustrates the significant effect inflation can have on retirement financial outcomes. We see this clearly by observing that the worst periods for retirees (measured by the cumulative loss in the purchasing power of their retirement savings) would generally have been periods when inflation was very high and assets failed to keep up in real terms (or worse still, performed negatively in nominal returns). This explains why the 1970’s would historically have been the worst period for those saving for retirement. So while the GFC and Great Depression were poor outcomes they are also-rans once prevailing inflation outcomes are considered. The GFC ranked the third largest drawdown in real terms and the Great Depression seventh. Indeed deflation during the Great Depression would have partly offset the loss of purchasing power due to poor nominal performance.

The chart above does suggest a fair amount of volatility. Let’s look at this more closely and investigate how a default portfolio would have performed historically. Table 1 below summarises the outcomes.

 

Nominal

 

Real

 


Annualised Return (pa)

9.16%

 

4.99%

 


Volatility of Annual Returns

10.24%

 

10.84%

 




Table 1: Historical simulated returns for a default portfolio (1 January 1900 to 31 January 2012). Source: Schroders; “Why SAA is Flawed,” March 2012, Schroder Investment Management Australia

It should not surprise that real returns are lower than nominal returns. But remember that the compounding of savings would be much slower in real terms than nominal returns.

Focus on real returns

It is interesting however to observe that the volatility of real returns is greater than the volatility of nominal returns; not by a huge amount, but higher nonetheless. Why is this? Firstly, volatility of real returns includes the effects of another source of variability, namely inflation outcomes, which is not directly captured when calculating the volatility of nominal outcomes. And secondly, the assets most commonly used in default funds (cash, nominal bonds, Australian and international equities) may not collectively always perform strongly when inflation is high. Unfortunately in this case the numbers don’t tell the full story. When it comes to real return outcomes there has historically been a greater tendency for ‘bad years’ to clump together (historically there have been times when once inflation creeps in it is hard to shake out). We can see this by looking back at the 1970’s period in Diagram 1.

This highlights the fallacy of super funds managing nominal return risk: by focusing on the wrong objective (nominal return and risk), members of super funds are exposed to a higher level of retirement outcome risk than they and the trustees of their super funds may think.

Can we rely on the current default portfolio asset mix to reliably deliver real returns? Unfortunately the answer is probably no. While Table 1 suggests that the average annualised real return would have historically been around 5% (before fees and other expenses; though generally this would be regarded as quite an acceptable level of gross real returns), the volatility of outcomes, the observation of outsized losses relative to what the volatility may suggest (indicating that returns may be skewed to the downside), and the observation that periods of bad real outcomes can clump together, create a historical picture where poor outcomes would have been experienced, even over long time frames. This is illustrated in Diagram 2 below where we look at historical rolling ten-year return outcomes.

DB Real2

Diagram 2: Simulated historical 10 year rolling returns (nominal and real) for a default portfolio asset allocation. Source: Schroders; “Why SAA is Flawed,” March 2012, Schroder Investment Management Australia.

We see that nominal return outcomes over rolling ten-year periods have always been positive and generally above 5%. The same cannot be said for real returns where we see some instance of negative rolling ten-year outcomes. If we think about cohorts of members retiring at different times then return sequencing risk becomes an issue (see Cuffelinks 6 March 2013 for an introduction). It is reasonable to question whether this variability in outcomes is appropriate for retirement savings.

Summary

Superannuation funds, financial planners and individuals think of the variability of nominal returns as the risk that needs to be managed. Most do not manage the variability of real returns, yet it is real outcomes which are most important to those saving for retirement and those living off their retirement savings. No risk can be managed effectively unless it is specifically targeted.

So how can we manage real return risks more directly? This is the topic of my next article.

 

 


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Why we overlook lifetime annuities

The utmost importance of real returns - but does the industry care?

Value of tax-aware investment management

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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.