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.

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.

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.

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?

Retirement is a risky business for most people

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Which generation had it toughest?

Each generation believes its economic challenges were uniquely tough - but what does the data say? A closer look reveals a more nuanced, complex story behind the generational hardship debate. 

Maybe it’s time to consider taxing the family home

Australia could unlock smarter investment and greater equity by reforming housing tax concessions. Rethinking exemptions on the family home could benefit most Australians, especially renters and owners of modest homes.

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

The Labor government is talking up tax reform to lift Australia’s ailing economic growth. Before any changes are made, it’s important to know who pays tax, who owns assets, and how much people have in their super for retirement.

The best way to get rich and retire early

This goes through the different options including shares, property and business ownership and declares a winner, as well as outlining the mindset needed to earn enough to never have to work again.

A perfect storm for housing affordability in Australia

Everyone has a theory as to why housing in Australia is so expensive. There are a lot of different factors at play, from skewed migration patterns to banking trends and housing's status as a national obsession.

Chinese steel - building a Sydney Harbour Bridge every 10 minutes

China's steel production, equivalent to building one Sydney Harbour Bridge every 10 minutes, has driven Australia's economic growth. With China's slowdown, what does this mean for Australia's economy and investments?

Latest Updates

Economy

Why we should follow Canada and cut migration

An explosion in low-skilled migration to Australia has depressed wages, killed productivity, and cut rental vacancy rates to near decades-lows. It’s time both sides of politics addressed the issue.

Investing

Simple maths says the AI investment boom ends badly

This AI cycle feels less like a revolution and more like a rerun. Just like fibre in 2000, shale in 2014, and cannabis in 2019, the technology or product is real but the capital cycle will be brutal. Investors beware.

Property

Australian house price speculators: What were you thinking?

Australian housing’s 50-year boom was driven by falling rates and rising borrowing power — not rent or yield. With those drivers exhausted, future returns must reconcile with economic fundamentals. Are we ready?

Shares

ASX reporting season: Room for optimism

Despite mixed ASX results, the market has shown surprising resilience. With rate cuts ahead and economic conditions improving, investors should look beyond short-term noise and position for a potential cyclical upswing.

Property

A Bunnings play without the hefty price tag

BWT Trust has moved to bring management in house. Meanwhile, many of the properties it leases to Bunnings have been repriced to materially higher rents. This has removed two of the key 'snags' holding back the stock.

Investment strategies

Replacing bank hybrids with something similar

With APRA phasing out bank hybrids from 2027, investors must reassess these complex instruments. A synthetic hybrid strategy may offer similar returns but with greater control and clearer understanding of risks.

Shares

Nvidia's CEO is selling. Here's why Aussie investors should care

The magnitude of founder Jensen Huang’s selldown may seem small, but the signal is hard to ignore. When the person with the clearest insight into the company’s future starts cashing out, it’s worth asking why.

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.