Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 212

Tension as diversified portfolios have lost their anchor

There’s plenty of material in the market about how yields within the aggregate bond indices are either nominally negative or offer negative real returns. It creates problems for investors seeking to achieve a ‘CPI+’ target just by allocating to traditional OECD government bonds as their portfolio’s defensive anchor.

Many Chief Investment Officers at defined benefit superannuation or pension funds wishing to manage their long-term liabilities with a standard diversified portfolio may no longer be able to consider government bonds a strategic asset class. At best, most OECD government bonds could be considered a tactical asset class, one used to buffer the underlying capital during any expected market correction. Their predicament is further complicated by the on/off debate around when meaningful inflation will return.

Where else to invest ‘defensively’?

Frustrated by their inability to access traditional government bond yields at CPI, let alone above, an increasing number of professional investors have either increased their risk budgets within their defensive buckets (sounds like an oxymoron), or they’ve abandoned the underlying bond indices and embraced specific bond issuer risk. In either case, this is indicative of how investors are looking to redefine traditional exposures, albeit while still under the ‘defensive’ umbrella.

But the risk budget must come from somewhere.

There’s always been some friction between bond and equity departments. More recently, much of this friction has come from the fixed income team now consuming a larger portion of the overall portfolio risk budget. Equity teams can come to resent this as they’re usually the ones asked to reallocate some of their risk budget to keep the overall bond allocation fixed at a Moses’ stone-engraved and highly static 40% level. The fixed income teams push out their risk budgets, while leaving the overall total portfolio risk budget static, and the allocation has come out of the equity teams.

In fixed income, especially for active portfolio managers, this has opened up what was previously a dormant and inactive sphere. What wasn’t passively allocated already was predominantly owned by a few big fixed income houses (or in central bank portfolios). Unlike what’s been happening within the equity world, many fixed income investors seem to be moving away from traditional passive. But here too, even the big ETF and index providers have been negatively impacted as investors have either favoured high risk fixed income options, or complete benchmark agnostic fixed income portfolios. Liquidity and capacity constraints have played against the massive size of the major fixed income shops.

Either way, yields on OECD medium and long-term bonds remain at levels that make it too difficult to assist in pension liability immunisation, or for any investor seeking low risk CPI+ returns. As long as this continues, investors will be forced to seek out alternatives within a shrinking bucket called Fixed Income.

Portfolios lose their defensive character

Investors will either have to push out their risk budgets (through individual bond purchases or through higher credit risk), or seek out bundled solutions which deliver risk and return metrics traditionally expected of a ‘defensive’ asset class. Obviously, these moves take portfolios away from their primary role of protecting capital. It’s like anchoring a boat with too short a slack, until it ultimately pulls the vessel under water.

Investing a diversified portfolio in this market is not easy. If it was, then economics would be an exact science over a social one.

 

Rob Prugue is Senior Managing Director and CEO at Lazard Asset Management (Asia Pacific). This content represents the current opinions of the author and its conclusions may vary from those held elsewhere within Lazard Asset Management. This article is for general education purposes and readers should seek their own professional advice.

RELATED ARTICLES

Is 'shaken and stirred' coming? The risky business of bonds

Are you in fixed interest for the duration?

Busting the bond myth

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

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

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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 ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.