Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 22

Simple investment risk management – this is the risk issue we need to talk about

I feel Chris Cuffe’s article ‘We need to talk about risk’ (Cuffelinks 21, 27 June 2013) may understate the benefits of aspiring to best practices in investment risk management. While it is hard to quantify the benefits of risk management (a claim also easily made of other important areas such as governance) this does not mean it should be discounted. Chris laments the use of volatility as a measure of risk, and I agree on this. But risk management is far more than the calculation of volatility; it is an unfair perception of risk management professionals to think they only calculate volatility. Those associated with the retirement savings of Australians need to strive for best practices in risk management. Many super funds already do much more than just calculate volatility. Perhaps it is the difficulty in communicating risk to non-financially literate people which is the issue – and it is this which has led to the use, and subsequent criticism, of the relatively simple measure of volatility.

Explaining complex topics to non-experts is a difficult challenge. Many industries face these communication challenges. How do you communicate the complexity in products such as cars, or medical procedures such as heart surgery? I’m sure we don’t want to see advancements in these areas slow down so that the communication process is easier, and I feel likewise about risk management. There are two issues at play here. One is the need to constantly improve risk management practices. And the other is the communication challenge of explaining to people that their risk is well managed.

It is unfortunate that there is no single measure of risk – life would be so much easier. Alas, risk is a complex beast and there are many different sources of risk, some of which we may not even have considered. The industry often paints risk managers as ‘quants’ or ‘pointy heads’ but the best risk management teams I have seen have been able to marry the science and the art of risk management. The best examples generally combine a mix of quantitative techniques (and continual development in this area) with the qualitative overlay of experienced people. The discretionary piece cannot be understated. Understanding the environment where models or inputs are unlikely to be reliable is crucially important. Unfortunately good risk management does not guarantee the avoidance of bad outcomes – but we still have to do our best.

If all risk represents is the calculation of volatility and this was the only risk management tool we had, then we would have even more bank failures, insurance company bankruptcies and super funds delivering disastrous results. In fact we wouldn’t need risk management teams – a simple model could do this job. Risk management would be nothing more than risk reporting. There is much more to managing risk and there are some great examples across the industry. If you ever have the privilege to meet firms with top risk management, the confidence it gives you that they understand the risks that may adversely affect their performance is very comforting. While nothing is guaranteed they are doing their best to manage the risks in their portfolios. Surely everyone deserves this, whether it is well-communicated or not.

The concept ‘best practice risk management’ cannot be defined. We do not know every possible source of risk that may affect portfolio outcomes. And models are only tools which attempt to estimate the possible outcomes. The inputs used in these models are simply estimates, hence the importance of qualitative judgement and experience. Indeed some of the best case studies in risk management have involved the judgement of an individual person.

When I am asked to analyse the risk management practices of a fund and its managers, I look for:

  • how they define risk
  • risk awareness and their understanding of possible sources of risk that may affect them so that their portfolio represents risks they appreciate and are prepared to take on
  • active risk management and not just risk reporters
  • the systems (and the quality of those systems) they use to estimate risk along with their understanding of the limitations of those systems
  • the resourcing of the risk management team
  • the experience of the risk management team and their preparedness (and authority) to overwrite what their models are saying.

I do agree with Chris that volatility is a simple risk management tool with many flaws (an article for another day). Simple volatility calculations are frustrating for all involved - frustrating for those communicating with investors because of its flaws in explaining risk and frustrating for risk managers as well because there is so much more to good risk management than simply calculating volatility.

We shouldn’t hold back the aspiration of best practices in risk management by tainting it with the perception that risk management is simply calculating volatility. Risk management is not risk reporting. It is much more and good risk management is critical to protecting financial outcomes. How to communicate risk and how risk is managed are different issues.

 

2 Comments
Paul Meleng
July 04, 2013

Fund managers should employ on the team a scarred old fart like me. Someone who has actually worked in the field for years as a surveyor for land development, mineral exploration, construction and utilities and then in real estate sales and then insurance and finally financial planning and who has a huge network of "real" people to check with. And someone who has actually seen plenty of things go wrong and been "conned" a few times too many. A classic from 1990 was Estate Mortgage where it turned out that the properties securing loans were construction holes in the ground when the lending was supposed to be limited to 65% of value of fully completed and tenanted buildings. Did anyone go and look for all the buildings and maybe get a lift maintenance certificate on any of them before giving the investment the tick ? Or consider, during the 70's nickel boom my mates and I used to get paid to go bush and see if the exploration tenements being traded had actually been pegged in the field. My dad ran hotels. He said "count the kegs". If all one knows is what one has read on paper or seen on a powerpoint presentation what does one believe? And yet you need both quants and people who walk around looking and asking awkward questions. The more variety in experience and ways of looking at things the better. Apart from analysing the risk characteristics of the type of investment (which is of course a first point for helping naive investors as clients) the risk of buying the actual investment at the current price has to be the first test. Thanks for the intelligent writing and discussion.

Steve Romic
July 04, 2013

Nicely put … a considered and balanced response to Chris’ earlier article.

The aversion doesn’t stop at standard deviation … to many, statistical approaches to risk management have been relegated to the rubbish bin – perhaps because it’s challenging to build and implement a framework that is both robust and rigorous...?

It shouldn’t come down to a “for” or “against” argument … best practice, as you put it applies both qualitative and quantitative processes to better measure, monitor and manage risk.

 

Leave a Comment:

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.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

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.

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.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

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.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

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.