* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Matching the risk profile of your funds with the risk characteristics of
Survey
Document related concepts
Financialization wikipedia , lookup
Greeks (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Private equity secondary market wikipedia , lookup
Business valuation wikipedia , lookup
Securitization wikipedia , lookup
Beta (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Modified Dietz method wikipedia , lookup
Lattice model (finance) wikipedia , lookup
Global saving glut wikipedia , lookup
Public finance wikipedia , lookup
Interest rate wikipedia , lookup
Financial economics wikipedia , lookup
Corporate finance wikipedia , lookup
Investment fund wikipedia , lookup
The Millionaire Next Door wikipedia , lookup
Capital gains tax in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Investment management wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Matching the risk profile of your funds with the risk characteristics of assets In previous papers we looked at the need to match, in broad terms, the risk profile of an organisation or portfolio with the risk characteristics of different asset classes. This paper expands on this theme, providing a deeper dive into the differing risk characteristics of various asset classes. In particular, it has a NFP focus in that it concentrates on perpetual charitable trusts without access to capital, or other NFPs where the trustees choose to invest in a similar way, for either all, or a portion of their investable assets. This paper looks at two different issues: The risk characteristics of different asset classes relevant to NFP investors, broken down by capital and income components; and, How time dampens substantially the volatility of Equity assets in a portfolio. This underscores why time frame is of critical importance when assessing the real risks associated with any investment strategy adopted by NFP trustees. 1. INCOME & INCOME GROWTH RISK VS CAPITAL VOLATILITY RISK The main difference between investing for an entity which takes a perpetual, or very long term view on the maintenance of its capital base, as opposed to almost all other types of investment, is that because there is only access to income and the capital (corpus) is solely there to provide future income, the focus when looking at risks in the investment portfolio are predominantly based on the risk characteristics of the income portion of each asset class. As the table below demonstrates, that has the effect of turning most of the conventional views of the risk of particular asset classes on their head. The table below looks at the risks to the INCOME portion of an asset class only and considers how they relate to the following risks faced by most NFP portfolios: Current income levels, which need to be high enough to meet current commitments; The ability to grow income in real terms (after the impact of inflation) over time (to enable the entity to stay relevant in meeting its spending objectives over the long term); The year to year volatility of the income from the asset in dollar terms (to make sure that programs can be maintained and future spending commitments met on a year to year basis); Tax effectiveness, to ensure that, despite being tax exempt, no unnecessary tax is paid and all tax benefits for a NFP, such as franking credits paid in cash, are harvested; Real capital growth. Capital growth after taking account of future inflation is necessary to generate the real growth in income which is the second objective on this list; and The volatility of the capital. This is not as relevant if the capital cannot be accessed but it still can still have relevance. For example, if the annual accounts are published and are used in fundraising efforts volatile capital can detract from fund raising success. In general, however, our earlier comment on the relationship between timeframe and volatility is of paramount importance. How do the various risks shown relate to different asset classes? Current Income Level Real Income Growth Income Volatility Tax Effectiveness P - P P P P - P P - Bonds / Fixed Interest P P - x x x x Cash Term deposits only x x x x Australian Shares International Shares Listed Property P Positive Neutral x Real Capital Growth Capital Volatility x x P P Negative impact on asset class shown The table shows that, if you are only looking at the income component of an asset invested by an NFP, Australian shares are actually a lot less risky than any other asset class: They have a high current income (a conservative portfolio can still generate an income of 6%pa at present, including franking credits) They have good income growth after inflation (more on this later) The year to year volatility of income is relatively low and, in most cases, predictable, because of lagging effects; They are tax effective for NFP investors in that the franking credits are received back in full from the ATO in cash; There is real capital growth which provides real growth in income over time; however, On the capital side, shares exhibit relatively more short term capital volatility but, if capital is not able to be accessed, or it is not the Trustees intention to access it in the longer term, that has little to no impact on appropriate asset allocation decisions. At the other extreme, cash and fixed interest (bonds) are the riskiest asset classes for a perpetual charitable fund, if only the income side is taken into account: In the current environment income is very low from both asset classes with the exception of Term Deposits (which still have income at about one half the level of a good share portfolio); History shows that over the long term there is little or no real income growth from holding a portfolio of bonds or cash given that both are referenced to the inflation rate over time. Cash rates produce the most volatile and unpredictable income streams of all asset classes as they are directly related to central bank decisions on monetary policy and take immediate effect. Changes in income streams from term deposits have a slightly longer lag, but only in months, and bond portfolios a bit longer than that. On the capital side, neither asset class give any material real capital growth over the long term and, from current interest rate levels, bond portfolios can be expected to produce negative real returns over the foreseeable future, with the possibility of at least a couple of years of negative nominal returns in the next few years. The other asset classes come between those extremes but to pick out some points of interest from the table: International shares are shown as having only average income levels and growth (although the income growth is closer to Australian shares than it is to listed property trusts) because as a general rule in most overseas share markets there is less emphasis on paying dividends than in Australia. Accordingly, equity market yields are significantly lower than here. International shares are shown as having negative tax effectiveness. That is because, as well as not receiving franking credits like Australian shares, a withholding tax is imposed on income repatriated to Australia by foreign countries which is not recoupable (unlike for taxpayers) so that money is lost to NFP’s. Listed property should really be seen as a subset of the equities market although, like infrastructure shares, it is a subset of that asset class with less income growth and normally less tax effectiveness, real capital growth and capital volatility than other components of the listed equities market. However, many of these listed property and infrastructure investments are also highly geared so in times of financial stress (like the GFC) or rising interest rates, (something we may reasonably expect over the next decade or so), they may well exhibit capital volatility equal to, or higher than, other listed securities. Therefore, looking solely through the lens of the income generated from a NFP portfolio, and if you either cannot access, or choose not to access the capital, either in perpetuity or for extended periods, the “least risky” asset class for a portfolio would be Australian shares and the “most risky” in the current environment, with an expectation of higher inflation and interest rates over the medium term, would be fixed interest followed by cash. 2. TIME FRAME AND RISK – INSEPARABLE TWINS For all investments, risk can never be appropriately assessed until the investment time frame is specified. This is true for all asset classes, but most especially for the listed Equities markets. Time is a double edged sword for most investments. Inflation eats away at the value of assets over time, even in periods of very low inflation. In the 15 years since 2001, the average annual inflation rate has “only” been 2.5% pa. However, that is a total inflation of 46.5% over that time, which means a cash deposit of $1,000,000 15 years ago would only be worth about $680,000 in today’s dollars. This assumes of course that all of the income has been spent along the way. Over the same period, the capital part of the Australian share market (All Ordinaries), again assuming all income had been spent, rose by 84%, almost double the inflation rate despite that period encompassing the GFC. However, as we are all aware, that was achieved with considerable short term capital volatility. We re-emphasise – short term volatility. The following charts are taken from ground breaking work co-ordinated by the London School of Economics for the Millennium project in the late 1990’s and updated since then (with this version from 2006). They show the volatility of annual returns over particular timeframes for both Australian Equities and Australian Bonds. The first chart above shows the dispersion of annual real returns (after inflation) for the Australian share market for holding periods between 10 and 106 years in the period since 1900. It shows that even for 10 year holding periods, returns were widely dispersed averaging from over 15% pa to around minus 5% per annum. However, as the length of the holding period increased, that dispersion came down significantly. Importantly the median returns were about 7.5% pa after inflation for much of those periods. The second chart below shows the volatility of returns for Australian fixed interest securities over the same period. What do these charts tell us? 1. The price of both asset classes can be volatile when measured over the short term, but as time frames increase the volatility decreases substantially for both of them; 2. Over rolling ten year periods bonds are not much less volatile than equities; 3. Over the very long term shares produce a return substantially higher than the inflation rate but bonds do not. Given where we currently are in the inflation / interest rate cycle, it would not be at all surprising if the next 20 years produced another negative figure like the ones shown in the chart above. The message from these charts is that, over the very long term, shares substantially outperform bonds after inflation. The other main message is that bonds do not have a significantly lower volatility of returns compared to shares over very long periods. We have now been in a secular bull market for bonds lasting over 30 years, with only small relatively short reversals in that long term trend. Investors who have not lived through the volatility (and negative returns) that occur in rising inflation periods may well have a false sense of security about the volatility of that asset class, as well as the real returns it can generate over the long term. Thus for perpetual trusts, or those wishing to manage a portion of their portfolio in that way to create an inflation proof income stream over the very long term, the most reliable asset class is shares, at least in terms of generating high, consistent, predictable and growing income streams. However, unlike bond and cash portfolios, where all the assets are relatively homogeneous in the way they produce an income stream, different shares may have vastly different income and growth characteristics. Accordingly, the mix of shares (companies) in a share portfolio from time to time can profoundly affect both its short and longer term prospects. The next paper will examine some of the strategies to create income streams from share portfolios in more detail especially looking at the longer term implications of creating an income stream through a broad portfolio of high yielding stocks or from lower income “growth” stocks. For more NFP thought pieces, please visit www.harperbernays.com.au/not-for-profit-thoughtpieces. Hugh Hodges Director – Philanthropy Harper Bernays Limited [email protected] DISCLAIMER: Harper Bernays Limited has made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this presentation is accurate. This document is not intended to provide a comprehensive description of the Harper Bernays’ investment, its investment opportunities or its investment strategies. Harper Bernays Limited has not taken into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any particular client. Before making an investment decision on the basis of this information, you should consider whether the information is appropriate in light of your particular investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. You may wish to consult external advisers to assist you with your decision.