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

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

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.