Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 374

Let’s clarify growth/defensive and move forward

There are many ways to measure exposure and risk. No single metric is perfect which is why professional risk managers use multiple measures of risk.

Many parts of the financial services industry classify portfolios based on a measure known as growth/defensive exposure. Growth/defensive has its fair share of flaws but it appears entrenched as an industry measure. However, there currently exists a one-off opportunity to improve the metric and make it standardised. All members of the investment community are encouraged to participate in the consultation currently open.

How do we use growth/defensive?

Growth/defensive exposure is used in many different ways, including:

  1. Research houses create super fund peer groups for performance comparisons, such as grouping together all funds classed as 60% growth/40% defensive.
  2. APRA’s Heatmap methodology assesses super funds by risk and return.
  3. Financial planners define growth/defensive categories to map clients to portfolios based on their risk tolerance.

For all its use in industry, growth/defensive remains undefined. As a result, there is a large degree of subjectivity, whether by industry when they self-assess or by groups such as APRA which has developed its own simple approaches, thereby introducing hard-coded subjectivity. These variations reduce confidence in any analysis produced using growth/defensive.

Industry attempts to standardise

Presently there is an industry-led project to create a standardised approach for assessing growth/defensive exposure to be used by all industry participants including regulators.

A working group (detailed here) was formed by volunteers from research houses and super funds. Following more than a year’s work, a proposed solution has been released for consultation.

Already there has been a high level of participation in the consultation process. Industry participants are encouraged to contribute and feedback will inform a better solution.

Consider the following puzzles:

  • If we followed traditional thinking that defensive assets are cash and bonds and growth assets are generally equities which participate in economic performance, where does that leave alternative investment products which can exhibit sizable risk, which could be independent of equities?
  • If we took a risk-based approach then should there be different scores among the universe of cash and fixed interest products, as they exhibit varying degrees of risk?

Pragmatism was the key to coming up with a solution. The working group stopped trying to come up with a definition (we accepted it as a hybrid measure of exposure and risk) and focused on the following:

  1. A quality measure that broadly reflects the risk/exposure consistently across different multi-asset portfolios
  2. A measure that doesn’t distort the portfolio decision-making process (compared to a decision made in a traditional risk/return framework)
  3. Manageable degree of operational impact.

We often found that these desires pulled against each other. Achieving a balance was the challenge.

Examples of growth/defensive asset scores

The proposed solution is outlined in the diagram below.

A couple of case studies help to illustrate the detailed scoring process:

Property and infrastructure. Fundamental criteria such as leverage levels and asset purpose (lower-risk income or higher-risk development) channel assets into two categories: Tier 1 risk (scored 60% growth/40% defensive) and Tier 2 risk (100% growth).

Hedge funds. The level of risk taken or targeted by the hedge fund is scaled to determine a growth/defensive score. Consider the simplified case of two hedge funds who target 6% and 12% volatility. Under our risk scaling approach, we scale the product volatility by 12% to determine that the two hedge funds would score 50% growth/50% defensive and 100% growth respectively.

Full details of the proposal are here.

It may be a healthy exercise for SMSFs to estimate their own growth/defensive score. The process we have detailed provides a healthy reminder that not all unlisted property has the same characteristics, that there is a huge dispersion among alternative investment products and that higher yielding credit can carry significant risk.

The working group was unable to incorporate portfolio diversification benefits into the solution. A variety of investments with different risk drivers should result in lower portfolio risk compared to the weighted sum of those individual risk exposures. But how do you standardise this calculation when there are so many investments?

Not being able to incorporate diversification benefits should be viewed as a limitation of growth/defensive as a risk measure. It serves as a reminder to those groups that use growth/defensive, including APRA, that the definition should be complemented by other approaches to measuring exposure and risk when undertaking analysis.

Feedback welcome

The aim is for a single industry solution and a standardised approach. At present the industry is under the microscope as never before. All feedback will be shared with the working group. The consultation paper is found here and the consultation closes on Monday 28 September.

Hopefully this will provide clear headspace for industry to move beyond growth/defensive and start using a variety of measurements to assess risk and performance. Thank you to the working group for all their contributions.

 

David Bell is Executive Director of The Conexus Institute, a not-for-profit research institution focused on improving retirement outcomes for Australians.

 

4 Comments
David Bell
September 10, 2020

I hope standardisation will improve accountability (it won't be perfect because growth / defensive is not without its flaws). But it will be easier for funds to understand how they are performing relatively and whether adjustments need to be made. There are potential challenges at both ends of the peer group tables: strong performing funds are sometimes viewed sceptically (perhaps fairly or unfairly), while poorer performers may claim it is because of how they categorise their assets (perhaps or perhaps not a valid claim). Better accountability will over time improve consumer outcomes.

Retired
September 10, 2020

This project falls at the first hurdle when it uses volatility as some sort of risk measure. The primary concern of the ‘senior savers’ I know is to firstly understand what part of the portfolio is ‘guaranteed defensive’ as we are not in a position to go back to accumulation mode. Everything else is therefore not defensive but some variant of growth/risky. Just define genuine defensive and forget about the rest, including the notion that a property can somehow be both defensive and growth - when its value falls the loss can not be apportioned?

David Bell
September 11, 2020

Thanks for your comment. I don't disagree with your view, but existing legacies prove constraining. While we think that consumers will indirectly benefit from better accountability provided by a standardised approach, I view this as a solution for industry more than a direct consumer solution. To give you some insight into the breadth of our work we did we develop a cash / defensive / growth framework, but when we consulted many of the people who use growth / defensive and have systems set up around it, they said this is a step too far. So how do we progress? I believe it is better to improve the growth / defensive measure while in parallel encouraging industry and regulators to explore, develop and implement other metrics.

Aussie HIFRE
September 10, 2020

It would certainly be very useful to have an industry wide standard of what counts as growth and what counts as defensive. Certainly at the moment there are a lot of industry super funds which claim to be "Balanced" but have up to 95% of their investments in what most people would call growth type investments. Completely unsurprisingly in an upmarket they then outperform retail funds which have only 50% in growth assets, or other industry funds with 70% in growth assets.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Don't be misled by investment classifications

Diversification lessons from the GFC

Is gold a growth or defensive asset?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Who's next? Discounts on LICs force managers to pivot

The boards and managers of six high-profile LICs, frustrated by their shares trading at large discounts to asset value, have embarked on radical strategies to fix the problems. Will they work?

Four simple things to do right now

Markets have recovered in the last six months but most investors remain nervous about the economic outlook. Morningstar analysts provide four quick tips on how to navigate this uncertainty.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 374

Suddenly, it's the middle of September and we don't hear much about 'snap back' anymore. Now we have 'wind backs' and 'road maps'. Six months ago, I was flying back from Antarctica after two weeks aboard the ill-fated Greg Mortimer cruise ship, and then the world changed. So it's time to take your temperature again. Our survey checks your reaction to recent policies and your COVID-19 responses.

  • 9 September 2020

Reporting season winners and losers in listed property trusts

Many property trust results are better than expected, with the A-REIT sector on a dividend yield of 4.8%. But there's a wide variation by sector and the ability of tenants to pay the rent.

Have stock markets become a giant Ponzi scheme?

A global financial casino has been created where investors ignore realistic valuations in the low growth, high-risk environment. At some point, analysis of fundamental value will be rewarded.

How the age pension helps retirees cope with losses

It's often overlooked how wealthier couples can fall back on the age pension if a market loss hits their portfolio. The reassurance is never greater than in a financial (and now epidemic) crisis.

Latest Updates

Weekly Editorial

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 376

The US tech index, the NASDAQ, peaked on 2 September 2020 at 12,058 and three weeks later closed at 10,632. On the same days, Apple hit US$137.98 and then fell to US$107.12. These falls of over 10% and 20% seem high but both were simply returning to their early August levels. It's hardly a rout when a month's gains are given back. The bigger issue is whether such stock corrections will scare off the retail 'Robinhood' traders.

  • 24 September 2020
  • 2
Interviews

Interview on new technologies with more potential to grow

For many global tech companies, COVID has boosted their revenues and pushed share prices to all-time highs. We are on the cusp of amazing technical advances and there are plenty of new opportunities.

Shares

Five reasons why Tesla is the everything bubble

As fewer professionals actively research the merits of a company’s prospects, stocks become disproportionately driven by capital flows. Prices disconnect from fundamentals and there's no better example than Tesla.

Retirement

Three retirement checks for when you have enough

Not every retiree needs to gun for higher returns, but a conservative portfolio can court its own risks, especially with bond rates so low. But some retirees prefer to settle for a lower income.

Shares

Hide and seek: the FX impact on global equity investments

As more Australians tilt their investments to global equities, they often overlook the exchange rate risk and fees. The move from US57 cents to US73 cents in six months shows the unhedged impact.

Economy

When America sneezes, the world catches a ...

The recovery from COVID-19 is looking more like a K-shape, with some companies doing well while others struggle. The pandemic seems more akin to a black swan, exogenous shock than a structural downturn.

Retirement

How the age pension helps retirees cope with losses

It's often overlooked how wealthier couples can fall back on the age pension if a market loss hits their portfolio. The reassurance is never greater than in a financial (and now epidemic) crisis.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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 class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.