Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 3

Is APRA's Standard Risk Measure helpful?

Investors may have noticed that super fund Product Disclosure Statements (PDSs) now include a measure of risk called the ‘Standard Risk Measure’, or SRM. The intention is to provide greater risk disclosure for retail investors. I encourage people to be very careful when reading such disclosures and to think about risk in more ways than is simply described by this measure in the PDS.

The SRM was introduced by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in 2011. It is a self-assessed estimation by the product provider of the number of times over a 20-year period that a fund is expected to deliver negative returns. For example, an Australian equity fund might appear in a High Risk band because it is expected to generate negative returns in 5 out of every 20 years. However, a fixed income fund might be in a lower Medium Risk band because negative returns occur only once every 2.5 years. APRA sought market feedback prior to implementing the SRM but the original version was adopted unaltered. The proposal was supported by two industry groups which is an interesting story in itself that I discuss later.

Any effort to improve risk disclosure in retail PDSs is welcome. However, there has been considerable debate around whether this SRM represents a step forward or whether it creates a set of issues which exceed the benefits of greater risk disclosure.

I have many doubts about the SRM but focus on two in this article: the measurement itself and the calculation method.

There are many measures of risk in finance and no single risk measure is perfect. A mosaic of risk measures blended with experience and a qualitative appreciation is probably our best chance to understand risk. Each measure on its own provides useful information but is flawed. Using volatility alone assumes that we live in a world which is perfectly normally distributed. Using VaR (Value-at-Risk, an estimation of an adverse, statistically-rare outcome) effectively provides a data point around the loss in a rare event but leaves us with little knowledge about what will happen in an everyday environment.

Size of loss is more important than the frequency

There are two key elements to understanding risk: the size of an event and the likelihood of that event occurring. Consider how this applies to the SRM, where the size of an adverse event is ignored. An event is simplified to be any negative return. So a negative 5% return is not viewed any differently to a negative 50% return. Those approaching retirement prior to the GFC can vouch that a 50% negative has a major impact on their livelihoods. Indeed any investor would surely take three negative 5% return years rather than a single year of negative 50%, yet the SRM may in fact guide them to take the opposite position and only expect to lose money in one year.

There are some strategies which have a very low likelihood of loss but if they do lose, they lose substantially. Consider a fund for instance which sells out-of-the-money options. It may consistently make money year after year and then suddenly lose everything when an option is exercised. Such funds would quite correctly report a very low SRM, but I question if this is the outcome desired by APRA.

Too much subjectivity

The other main area of concern is implementation of the calculation, which is undertaken by the product provider, although APRA may review the calculation methodology. Even though there exists much science around calculating risk statistics, there remains much subjectivity. It is possible that two highly respected risk managers could look at an identical product and calculate a different SRM. And both calculations could be defended as having been calculated by a professional and backed with appropriate research.

This then creates a dilemma for product providers. Offered two different SRMs, there would be internal pressure to adopt the lower measurement, thereby making their product appear less risky and hence more attractive. There have already been some industry reports of similar products having different SRMs and of bond funds having a measure close to some equity funds.

I can empathise with APRA on this decision to have providers do their own calculations. Banks are required to calculate on a daily basis the amount of market risk they are taking (measured by VaR) which determines a capital requirement for market risk. Because the number of banks operating in Australia is relatively small, APRA is very hands-on in reviewing the calculation methodologies used by each bank. However, in the funds management industry, there are a huge number of products and fund providers and APRA has likely decided it is impossible to regulate this calculation closely.

But there were other implementation choices. A small team could have calculated the risk numbers, with the product provider given an opportunity to object. This may have led to greater consistency. Overall, the self-implementation approach reduces the ability of the SRM to be relied upon as a way of comparing products.

Lack of agreement between industry bodies

A particularly interesting aspect of the SRM debate has been the role of various industry bodies.  Officially, the SRM is “the product of an ASFA (Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia) and FSC (Financial Services Council) working group, and is supported by ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).”  However, the SRM was proposed by APRA prior to the creation of the working group. Many other industry bodies have criticised the statistic, notably AIST (Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees), Actuaries Institute, and ISN (the Industry Super Network). It is confounding that these industry bodies can have such strongly opposed views, and perhaps leaves a question mark over the consultation process.

All up, while it is an admirable objective to improve risk disclosure, even given the difficulties of such a large universe of products and providers, I can only describe this as awkward regulation. I hope the Standard Risk Measure is not relied upon too heavily by retail investors.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

The pros and cons of taking the DIY super route

What can super funds learn from advisers?

Who’s who in the zoo of Australian asset management?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

Latest Updates

Investing

Designing a life, with money to spare

Are you living your life by default or by design? It strikes me that many people are doing the former and living according to others’ expectations of them, leading to poor choices including with their finances.

Investment strategies

A closer look at defensive assets for turbulent times

After the recent market slump, it's a good time to brush up on the defensive asset classes – what they are, why hold them, and how they can both deliver on your goals and increase the reliability of your desired outcomes.

Financial planning

Are lifetime income streams the answer or just the easy way out?

Lately, there's been a push by Government for lifetime income streams as a solution to retirement income challenges. We run the numbers on these products to see whether they deliver on what they promise.

Shares

Is it time to buy the Big Four banks?

The stellar run of the major ASX banks last year left many investors scratching their heads. After a recent share price pullback, has value emerged in these banks, or is it best to steer clear of them?

Investment strategies

The useful role that subordinated debt can play in your portfolio

If you’re struggling to replace the hybrid exposure in your portfolio, you’re not alone. Subordinated debt is an option, and here is a guide on what it is and how it can fit into your investment mix.

Shares

Europe is back and small caps there offer significant opportunities

Trump’s moves on tariffs, defence, and Ukraine, have awoken European Governments after a decade of lethargy. European small cap manager, Alantra Asset Management, says it could herald a new era for the continent.

Shares

Lessons from the rise and fall of founder-led companies

Founder-led companies often attract investors due to leaders' personal stakes and long-term vision. But founder presence alone does not guarantee success, and the challenge is to identify which ones will succeed in the long term.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.