Balanced funds failing to deliver

retirement asset allocation global financial crisis equity markets smsf essentials

30 July 2013
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

The traditional superannuation balanced fund, with its 70/30 allocation to growth and defensive assets, is limiting investors and failing to deliver appropriate investment outcomes for members in their retirement, according to State Street Global Advisors (SSgA). 

Despite returning an average of 14.7 percent (before fees) during the financial year 2012/13, the typical balanced growth fund had returned only 3.8 percent per annum on average over five years, Dan Farley, head of SSgA's Investor Solutions Group, has pointed out.  

Farley said that the good returns achieved last financial year also masked a number of risks that these balanced funds exposed investors to during the year.

For example, a marked rise in bond yields and a resultant loss in fixed income coincided with a fall in equity markets during the year - highlighting that relying solely on the diversification of traditional assets as a way to protect a portfolio's value was not enough.  

"As an industry we have failed to effectively manage the key investment risks associated with retirement such as accumulation, longevity, volatility and inflation," Farley said. 

"Furthermore, these considerations have not evolved through the investors' lifecycle - working years, nearing retirement, active retirement, and the later years. 

"We need to focus instead on one end game over an enduring period of time, accounting for changing market conditions; the suitability of investments through different stages of life; equity risk and asset protection during specific market regimes; and the allocation of portfolio expenses," he continued.

"It's time to build better retirement portfolios for all ages and lifestyles." 

Using the global financial crisis as an example, Farley said that in 2007 most funds had adopted a static asset allocation to traditional growth and defensive assets based on long-term assumptions. 

"The underlying investments were not fit for the purpose and the right assets were not allocated to for the right market environment," he said.

"This is particularly apparent for those in or approaching retirement. 

"There was no change in construction based on the investors' stage of life, no explicit risk or return targets, no account of retirement lifestyle needs or investor behaviour and no explicit management of equity risk," Farley continued.

"These fundamental limitations in portfolio construction still persist today. 

"Equities still dominate the average retirement fund, in asset allocation, risk and return." 

Originally published by SMSF Essentials.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

GG

So shareholders lose a dividend plus have seen the erosion of value. Qantas decides to clawback remuneration from Alan ...

4 weeks ago
Denise Baker

This is why I left my last position. There was no interest in giving the client quality time, it was all about bumping ...

4 weeks 1 day ago
gonski

So the Hayne Royal Commission has left us with this. What a sad day for the financial planning industry. Clearly most ...

4 weeks 1 day ago

The decision whether to proceed with a $100 million settlement for members of the buyer of last resort class action against AMP has been decided in the Federal Court....

2 weeks ago

A former Brisbane financial adviser has been found guilty of 28 counts of fraud where his clients lost $5.9 million....

3 weeks 6 days ago

The Financial Advice Association Australia has addressed “pretty disturbing” instances where its financial adviser members have allegedly experienced “bullying” by produc...

3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS