Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 3

Is APRA's Standard Risk Measure helpful?

Investors may have noticed that super fund Product Disclosure Statements (PDSs) now include a measure of risk called the ‘Standard Risk Measure’, or SRM. The intention is to provide greater risk disclosure for retail investors. I encourage people to be very careful when reading such disclosures and to think about risk in more ways than is simply described by this measure in the PDS.

The SRM was introduced by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in 2011. It is a self-assessed estimation by the product provider of the number of times over a 20-year period that a fund is expected to deliver negative returns. For example, an Australian equity fund might appear in a High Risk band because it is expected to generate negative returns in 5 out of every 20 years. However, a fixed income fund might be in a lower Medium Risk band because negative returns occur only once every 2.5 years. APRA sought market feedback prior to implementing the SRM but the original version was adopted unaltered. The proposal was supported by two industry groups which is an interesting story in itself that I discuss later.

Any effort to improve risk disclosure in retail PDSs is welcome. However, there has been considerable debate around whether this SRM represents a step forward or whether it creates a set of issues which exceed the benefits of greater risk disclosure.

I have many doubts about the SRM but focus on two in this article: the measurement itself and the calculation method.

There are many measures of risk in finance and no single risk measure is perfect. A mosaic of risk measures blended with experience and a qualitative appreciation is probably our best chance to understand risk. Each measure on its own provides useful information but is flawed. Using volatility alone assumes that we live in a world which is perfectly normally distributed. Using VaR (Value-at-Risk, an estimation of an adverse, statistically-rare outcome) effectively provides a data point around the loss in a rare event but leaves us with little knowledge about what will happen in an everyday environment.

Size of loss is more important than the frequency

There are two key elements to understanding risk: the size of an event and the likelihood of that event occurring. Consider how this applies to the SRM, where the size of an adverse event is ignored. An event is simplified to be any negative return. So a negative 5% return is not viewed any differently to a negative 50% return. Those approaching retirement prior to the GFC can vouch that a 50% negative has a major impact on their livelihoods. Indeed any investor would surely take three negative 5% return years rather than a single year of negative 50%, yet the SRM may in fact guide them to take the opposite position and only expect to lose money in one year.

There are some strategies which have a very low likelihood of loss but if they do lose, they lose substantially. Consider a fund for instance which sells out-of-the-money options. It may consistently make money year after year and then suddenly lose everything when an option is exercised. Such funds would quite correctly report a very low SRM, but I question if this is the outcome desired by APRA.

Too much subjectivity

The other main area of concern is implementation of the calculation, which is undertaken by the product provider, although APRA may review the calculation methodology. Even though there exists much science around calculating risk statistics, there remains much subjectivity. It is possible that two highly respected risk managers could look at an identical product and calculate a different SRM. And both calculations could be defended as having been calculated by a professional and backed with appropriate research.

This then creates a dilemma for product providers. Offered two different SRMs, there would be internal pressure to adopt the lower measurement, thereby making their product appear less risky and hence more attractive. There have already been some industry reports of similar products having different SRMs and of bond funds having a measure close to some equity funds.

I can empathise with APRA on this decision to have providers do their own calculations. Banks are required to calculate on a daily basis the amount of market risk they are taking (measured by VaR) which determines a capital requirement for market risk. Because the number of banks operating in Australia is relatively small, APRA is very hands-on in reviewing the calculation methodologies used by each bank. However, in the funds management industry, there are a huge number of products and fund providers and APRA has likely decided it is impossible to regulate this calculation closely.

But there were other implementation choices. A small team could have calculated the risk numbers, with the product provider given an opportunity to object. This may have led to greater consistency. Overall, the self-implementation approach reduces the ability of the SRM to be relied upon as a way of comparing products.

Lack of agreement between industry bodies

A particularly interesting aspect of the SRM debate has been the role of various industry bodies.  Officially, the SRM is “the product of an ASFA (Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia) and FSC (Financial Services Council) working group, and is supported by ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).”  However, the SRM was proposed by APRA prior to the creation of the working group. Many other industry bodies have criticised the statistic, notably AIST (Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees), Actuaries Institute, and ISN (the Industry Super Network). It is confounding that these industry bodies can have such strongly opposed views, and perhaps leaves a question mark over the consultation process.

All up, while it is an admirable objective to improve risk disclosure, even given the difficulties of such a large universe of products and providers, I can only describe this as awkward regulation. I hope the Standard Risk Measure is not relied upon too heavily by retail investors.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

The pros and cons of taking the DIY super route

What can super funds learn from advisers?

Who’s who in the zoo of Australian asset management?

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. 

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?

Supercharging the ‘4% rule’ to ensure a richer retirement

The creator of the 4% rule for retirement withdrawals, Bill Bengen, has written a new book outlining fresh strategies to outlive your money, including holding fewer stocks in early retirement before increasing allocations.

Latest Updates

Economy

The ‘priced out generation’ and what they should do about it

A fiery interview on housing exposed deep generational divides, sparking youth outrage and political backlash. As homeownership drifts out of reach, young Australians face a choice: fight the system - or redefine success.

Taxation

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.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Ageing and its financial challenges

Ageing SMSF members can face issues funding their pension income as cash reserves dwindle. Potential solutions include involving adult children in contributions to secure future financial stability.

Economy

US earnings season was almost too good to be true

The second quarter US earnings season has wrapped up, with a record 82% of S&P 500 firms beating earnings estimates. As tailwinds fade, Q3 may reveal whether AI momentum can offset rising economic headwinds. 

Gold

Does gold still deserve a place in a diversified portfolio?

9,000 years and no devaluations later, gold is the world’s most enduring store of value. It remains attractive as the value of several paper currencies, including the US dollar, are threatened by deficits and rising debt.

Shares

Checking in on the equity market's silent engine

Consumer spending directly impacts corporate earnings, sector performance and market sentiment. The latest data from different economies uncover risks and pockets of opportunity for investors.

Fixed interest

6 key themes driving bond markets

The Fed could soon be prompted to join other central banks in cutting interest rates. This would have ripple effects across global fixed income markets and provide an especially attractive backdrop for emerging market bonds.

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.