Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 5

Don’t spend your career further exposing yourself

 

Media Super, an industry fund for those in the media, creative and digital sectors, recently announced that it was investing in a financing facility for local film production. It is interesting to think this through, and lifecycle theory (see article in Cuffelinks 1 for an introduction to this subject) is a useful framework to apply.

In short, lifecycle theory is about maximising a lifetime of consumption and leisure. Our work, saving and consuming, and investment choices are the levers at our disposal. Of course there is much randomness as we don’t know how our lives and the world will pan out. However we can manage the risks we see. The alternative is the typical portfolio construction approach (commonly using mean-variance style techniques) where we focus on the portfolio outcome ignorant of other features of our lives.

One risk to consider is how our investment portfolio interacts with other risks in our lives. A key aspect is our income. It may be exposed to shocks, in particular unemployment, and part of the growth in our income will be linked to the performance of the employer, the sector and the economy as a whole. And income is important as it affects how much can be contributed to superannuation and other forms of savings.

Given that it is impossible to perfectly hedge risks to our income it makes sense to diversify such risks. Rather than focussing on the optimal way to diversify, let us first consider the three most obvious ways.

The first way would be to not invest in shares of the company you are employed by. If the company performs poorly your funds for retirement will be adversely affected at the same time that you may be exposed to the risk of being laid off or not experiencing pay increases. An unfortunate example of this comes from the US. In the US corporate 401(k) pension plans (their retirement savings vehicles), companies commonly had their own stock as an investment option. Many employees of Enron (the energy and commodities firm which turned out to be a major fraud) lost their jobs, entitlements and much of their retirement savings as they invested their 401(k) plans in company stock. This practice is still allowed in the US and in some cases employees continue to make large allocations to their own stock.

Why? A possible reason is behavioural: many people take comfort in the fact that they at least know their own company, although the majority of employees know little about valuing and buying their own company’s shares. In superannuation, people with their own SMSFs have the opportunity to directly manage this risk. It may be an area where financial advisers can add value to their clients, and it is an issue that trustees of corporate superannuation funds should think about.

Of course an alternative view is that executives should have ‘skin in the game’ and owners of small businesses will probably put most of their capital into their own business. These are special cases where either there are additional benefits (participation in high wages, bonuses, options etc), or small business owners have substantial inside information. For the average worker, their insight into the company they work for will not be significant.

A second approach would be to avoid investing in shares in the sector in which you work. For instance consider someone who works on the resources sector, where there is a high correlation amongst stocks within the sector. There is a risk that a collection of your investments may perform poorly at the same time as you experience income risk. Media Super is but one example. CBUS (an industry fund for construction and building services) and HOSTPLUS (hospitality, tourism, recreation and sport) both have investment exposures to the industries their members work in. I do not know of a single industry superannuation fund which has a policy to not invest in the industries from which their members draw their income. And yet this seems to be the best thing to do in terms of diversifying a key risk to lifecycle outcomes (and indeed a wonderful opportunity for industry funds to differentiate themselves from their retail counterparts who draw members from various industries).

Why doesn’t this occur? Well, industry funds may want to be seen to be supporting the sectors in which their members work. I remain unconvinced on the merits of this. Any individual industry fund represents a small amount of the total capital in the world and is unlikely to make a significant difference to the economic outcome of a sector. And if it is being done to be seen to be supporting the industry, then this is unjustified relative to the extra lifecycle risk being imposed upon members.

However the sector investments may be justified if they come with a higher return potential based on insights gained through the fund being associated with sector specialists. For instance, Media Super Chief Executive Ross Martin, with respect to the film industry investment, was quoted as saying,

"Members have earned a competitive return from this unique portfolio and the assistance from our industry partners has been invaluable for the scoping and due diligence required for this kind of alternative investment."

This benefit may well compensate for any increased concentration in risk to lifetime financial outcomes.

A third technique is to re-allocate from domestic equities to global equities. Academic research has shown that such an approach may be justified because the returns from global equities are less related to Australian economic conditions and thus a better diversifier to income risk. However Australian equities remain the largest asset class exposure across most superannuation default funds. Australian superannuation funds exhibit a home country bias, as do many retirement systems around the world. Once again there are reasons to explain this, some acceptable, some less so. One acceptable reason is the benefits of franking credits (as discussed by Chris Cuffe in Cuffelinks Edition 1).  Another reason may be taking comfort in the familiarity of Australian companies, but having some familiarity with an investment doesn’t offset its risk, and greater financial education may assist here. The final reason commonly cited is peer group risk, that it is risky to act differently than the peer comparison group. This is not acceptable as there is little evidence that managing peer group risk enhances member’s retirement outcomes.

This is an interesting example of how lifecycle theory, where we think about all the factors which may affect our outcomes, should lead to different portfolios for people working for different companies and industry sectors. And while I relate it back to theory (that’s the academic in me), it is all just common sense. Don’t put all your eggs in the one basket, or to stretch the idioms, don’t get your butter from where you earn your bread. In superannuation, SMSF’s have the greatest ability to specifically manage this risk, as they have complete investment flexibility. Financial planners should incorporate it into their risk assessment. This is an important issue for corporate superannuation funds to consider. And there is an exciting opportunity for industry funds to be more member-focused than retail funds.

 

 

3 Comments
Warren Bird
March 12, 2013

Very good argument, David. In so many spheres there is a more holistic approach being taken - eg in health, more GP's are looking at the mental/psychological and spiritual aspects of a person's health, as well as the physical symptoms. Our investments are just one part of our overall life experience and should be evaluated in the context of all the others. Some people have done this in respect of their beliefs and ethical investments. I appreciate that you've given this a broader context. Surely the next phase for super funds providing a service to their members is to get away from the standard 'balanced' fund approach and offer them what each individual actually needs.

Hugh Dive
March 11, 2013

Great piece on career exposure by owning your corporation’s own stock. It has always baffled me why you wouldn’t want to diversify you exposure to a single company.

When I was first starting out in finance a few of my colleagues bought stock in the large US-based bank we worked for, encouraged by the employer offering them a 10% discount to market price. My view was that we were just small cogs in the giant global corporation, with minimal insight into how the company was actually performing. Moreover due to the size of the organisiation, this insight could be somewhat akin to three blind people describing an elephant by touching it's trunk, feet and tail.

Jim
March 11, 2013

Enjoying reading your articles.

 

Leave a Comment:


banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The nuts and bolts of family trusts

There are well over 800,000 family trusts in Australia, controlling more than $3 trillion of assets. Here's a guide on whether a family trust may have a place in your individual investment strategy.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 581 with weekend update

A recent industry event made me realise that a 30 year old investing trend could still have serious legs. Could it eventually pose a threat to two of Australia's biggest companies?

  • 10 October 2024

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 583 with weekend update

Investing guru Howard Marks says he had two epiphanies while visiting Australia recently: the two major asset classes aren’t what you think they are, and one key decision matters above all else when building portfolios.

  • 24 October 2024

Preserving wealth through generations is hard

How have so many wealthy families through history managed to squander their fortunes? This looks at the lessons from these families and offers several solutions to making and keeping money over the long-term.

A big win for bank customers against scammers

A recent ruling from The Australian Financial Complaints Authority may herald a new era for financial scams. For the first time, a bank is being forced to reimburse a customer for the amount they were scammed.

The quirks of retirement planning with an age gap

A big age gap can make it harder to find a solution that works for both partners – financially and otherwise. Having a frank conversation about the future, and having it as early as possible, is essential.

Latest Updates

Planning

What will be your legacy?

As we get older, many of us start to think about how we’ll be remembered by those left behind. This looks at why that may not be the best strategy to ensure that you live life well and leave loved ones in good stead.

Economy

It's the cost of government, stupid

Australia's bloated government sector is every bit as responsible for our economic worries as the cost of living crisis. Grand schemes like the 'Future Made in Australia' only look set to make it worse.

SMSF strategies

A guide to valuing SMSF assets correctly

SMSF trustees are required to value all fund assets, including property, at market value when preparing the fund's financial statements each year. Here are some key tips to ensure that you get it right.

Economics

Australia is lucky the British were the first 'intruders'

British colonisation's Common Law system contributed to economic prosperity, in contrast to Latin America's lower wealth under Civil Law. It influenced capitalism's success in former British colonies, like Australia.

Economics

A significant shift in the jobs market

The expansion of the 'care sector' represents the most profound structural change to Australia's job market since the mining boom. This analyses how it's come about and the impact it will have on the economy.

Shares

Searching for value in tech stocks

Just because a stock is cheap doesn't necessarily make it good value. This uses case studies in the tech sector to help identify when stocks trading on 30x earnings may be inexpensive and when others on 10x may be value traps.

Investing

Are more informed investors prone to making poorer decisions?

Finance Professor Michael Finke recently discussed the double-edged sword of taking an interest in your investments, three predictors of panic selling, and why nurses tend to be better investors than doctors.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 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.