Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 86

There’s more to risk aversion than most planners realise

Risk aversion defines our attitudes and preferences regarding risk taking. While risk aversion is commonly associated with the finance industry, risk aversion is everywhere: our daily activities, the major decisions we make in life, our respect for the rules and laws of society and even the choices we make in our personal relationships. In this article I focus on financial risk aversion.

Finance industry and academic research are polarised

Financial risk aversion defines our attitudes to taking financial risk. It is an area where industry and academia are poles apart, and in my opinion not well understood by industry in particular. The academic definition of risk aversion is specific, namely the reluctance of a person to accept a bargain with an uncertain payoff rather than another bargain with a more certain, but possibly lower, expected payoff.

Research into risk aversion requires many different skillsets: economists, finance specialists, psychologists, actuaries and behavioural science experts, just to name a few specialties which have a role to play in better understanding risk aversion.

Relative versus absolute risk aversion

Many in the industry summarise the risk aversion of an individual as a single number based on the answers to a questionnaire; I believe this is a dangerous approach. Risk aversion is much more than a numeric measure of a risk attitude: the form of our risk preferences is also crucial to understand.

In the academic literature risk preferences can take many forms, including absolute risk aversion and relative risk aversion. Absolute risk aversion means that we have an aversion to losing a certain dollar amount. Relative risk aversion means that we have an aversion to losing a certain percentage of our portfolio. So as a portfolio grows in size, all else equal, an individual whose risk preferences take the form of absolute risk aversion would ideally roll into a less aggressive portfolio while an individual whose risk preferences take the form of relative risk aversion would not change their investment strategy.

Many academics and industry practitioners claim that relative risk aversion (that is, percentage-based) is intuitively more appropriate and there is some support for this from research experiments. However there are also experiments and case studies that reveal that people express absolute risk aversion preferences. Bringing this back to industry, a relative risk aversion assumption is evident in the design of many basic default super funds (constant risk exposure regardless of account balance), whereas lifecycle funds have some sympathy to the concepts of absolute risk aversion (the risk of the fund decreases with age which is broadly related to account balance).

The theory of measuring risk aversion has been a highly detailed area of research for many years. Examples include lottery style tests and qualitative questionnaires. The better quality questionnaire approaches have been calibrated alongside lottery style tests for consistency. A lottery style test offers an individual the choice of two lotteries with varying payouts and risks. By running a number of permutations across the same individual, an estimate of risk aversion can be derived.

Research findings on risk aversion

The academic literature has revealed some novel findings on risk aversion. For instance:

  • Men are generally less risk averse (more risk seeking) than women
  • We tend to become more risk averse as we age
  • Tall people are on average less risk averse than short people
  • Financial risk aversion has some consistency with our overall ‘life’ risk aversion
  • An individual’s self-assessment of their own risk aversion is more accurate than the informed opinion of their financial planner.

In theory, particularly in academia, risk aversion is often assumed to be exactly known and is used as a direct input into determining how an individual should optimally invest their savings. This is done to illustrate an important research question, rather than in ignorance of the uncertainties in measuring risk aversion.

Industry uses inadequate risk tolerance tests

In industry, attempts are made to measure risk aversion. These generally take the form of a risk tolerance questionnaire. Answers are aggregated and mapped into a recommended portfolio allocation. Many of the approaches I have seen are too simplistic. In particular no attempt is taken to measure the form of risk aversion. Many financial planners account for this by using the risk aversion estimate alongside a consideration of an individual’s capacity to take financial risk (the status of their personal balance sheet and income profile) and their financial objectives, to determine an appropriate investment strategy.

The industry seems to make some simplifications which could have a great cost to individuals. Specifically, many portfolios appear to be constructed using a mean variance framework, whereby one designs a portfolio which maximises expected return for a determined tolerance to investment volatility. Portfolios designed using this approach are only optimal for an individual whose preferences take the special form of relative risk aversion where the pain of a loss is equal to the pleasure of an equivalent sized gain. Is this really an appropriate assumption? Many behavioural science experiments would suggest not: the pain of a loss is often greater than the pleasure of an equivalent sized gain.

Understanding the risk aversion of individuals is an important issue for all industry participants. The obvious area is financial planning where, as stated previously, my opinion is that risk profiling practices can be improved. The other area is the design of the investment strategy for a super fund where effectively there are embedded assumptions built into the design of default funds. For both groups there is a lot of powerful science about how risk aversion can be measured and how it should be translated into portfolio construction that is largely untouched by industry.

 

David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at AUSCOAL Super. He is working towards a PhD at University of New South Wales.

 

4 Comments
Martin Mulcare
November 01, 2014

Thanks, David, for raising this important topic. I picked up one aspect of the overly narrow assessment of risk that financial advisers apply in my August column in "Professional Planner". I argued that the focus on the risk of a fall in asset values was important but it completely ignored the important risk of a fall in income - very relevant to people whose retirement income relies on investment returns from allegedly "safe" assets like bank deposits. Hence, I was delighted to read that Peter Hecht separates the two components. I wonder how many advisers discuss the full range of risks (eg longevity risk) with their clients?

Ramani
November 01, 2014

Before an investor commits to an investment, it is worthwhile to ponder what may go wrong, with what likelihood and likely impact ('loss given default' in credit). Sensible and experienced folk would do this.

When faced with the financial planner (often serving and served by product issuers), this becomes difficult. Complex products, opaque language designed not to inform, gargantuan tax, preservation and transition rules exacerbated by grand-fathering, adviser bias, the inability to say'I do not understand' contribute to poor preparedness.

Lest we tar advisers unfairly, allow for the degree to which the conversation could go and be documented by way of self-protection. The adviser has to expose the investor to products with risk, but should not so scare her to induce inaction (not in either party's interest), as inadvertent procrastination has the same effect as a deliberate decision not to act.

Given the planner plays the role of match-maker, deal pusher, wedding planner and divorce lawyer at different stages, it is too much to expect that he would dwell on the perils of divorce at the early stages. Yet this is what comprehensive planning entails, and obfuscation aided by legal disclaimers then become the refuge.

More than anything, expectation management is the key. One way to progress is to set them realistically, rather than allowing transient boom conditions to dominate as outcomes are hardly in anyone's control.

Peter Hecht
October 31, 2014

I thought it was a very good article. One of the problems we have is that too frequently the income and growth prospects are combined into a single figure and a single risk profile..

In my dealings with clients I clearly separate these two components and point out the differences in volatility and risk that applies to the income and growth prospects of an investment.

paul murphy
October 31, 2014

David raises some interesting academic points of view and clearly the journey of wealth creation will never be a smooth road. In my 20 plus years of commercial experience I am constantly amused and entertained by the 3 pillars of investor behaviour which I refer to as "FIG" - fear, ignorance and greed ! The topic of risk profile and the discussion that generally follows is at best, very subjective and often riddled with a myriad of contradictions and questionable expectations. I am of the view that the archaic practice of "teaching" our children about bank deposits and passbook accounts has created a generation of disadvantaged wealth seekers.
We will continue to educate and share our intellectual capital with our clients to move them in the direction of their "holy grail" , however the shadow of investor behaviour and herd mentality will remain a clear and present danger to this quest.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Risk aversion in practice in large funds and SMSFs

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

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?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

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?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

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.