Will COVID-19 kill the balanced option?BY ELIZABETH MCARTHUR | THURSDAY, 9 APR 2020 3:54PM As consumers saw their superannuation balances nosedive when the COVID-19 pandemic began wreaking havoc on the market many were surprised to learn their retirement savings weren't quite as safe as they thought, reigniting the debate around 'balanced' investment options.
Upgrade your subscription to access this article
And gain access to:
And moreRead our full COVID-19 news coverage and analysis here. Related News |
Editor's Choice
ASIC stalls Sequoia bid to ditch cross guarantee deed
ASIC is again putting up roadblocks to Sequoia Financial Group's attempt to revoke the deed of cross guarantee with InterPrac Financial Planning, asking more questions and requesting more information before the group rids itself of all liabilities arising from the Shield and First Guardian disaster.
MLC Super creates two new general manager roles
MLC Super has created two new roles of general manager of portfolio delivery and general manager of employer superannuation.
Robeco pitches Enhanced Indexing strategy to instos
Robeco has launched a new systematic strategy for institutional investors, designed to manage the Australian index's overconcentration in banks and miners.
Mercer reshapes fund manager lineup for fixed income strategy
Mercer Australia has halved the number of fixed income fund managers in its sovereign bond fund strategy, retaining just Challenger Life and Macquarie Investment Management.
Further Reading
Products
Expert Feed
When geopolitics becomes a portfolio risk
Geopolitics is back - again - and Australian investors can no longer treat it as distant background noise.
Does association membership still matter?
With all the changes the advice sector has experienced in recent years, such as regulatory reform and increased education and professional standards ...
Digital assets and where they stand in 2026
So far in 2026 digital assets have captured the headlines largely for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't tell the full story.
Rethinking default design in a changing market environment
The evolution underway in the US DC system highlights the value of periodically reassessing default design assumptions.
Featured Profile
David Sharpe
CHAIRMAN
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
A family man, business owner, cricket fanatic and financial adviser, David Sharpe has many facets. One of his biggest legacies, as he steps down as chair of the Financial Advice Association Australia, is leaving the profession stronger than he found it.
The Financial Standard podcast Tune in each week as we discuss the latest developments in Australia's wealth management industry. |  |
Oh dear, here we go again. May the Good Lord preserve us from experts - especially the eloquent and those in ASIC and APRA.
'Balanced'? How did we come to use a nebulous term like that. Surely all funds are balanced, but differently. Or do we mean some are 'unbalanced'? In short, the term is meaningless.
And 'conservative'! Shouldn't all life savings be invested conservatively? But, then again, what does conservative investment mean? Different things to different people, and different things according to its purpose. Advisers, of course, need to be wary of ASIC's cast-iron interpretation!
Then there's 'growth'! Growth of what? Yes, yes - of course - interpreted and bandied about by all and sundry to mean growth in market values - the quantum. And how successful has chasing growth in market values been? The All Ords today stands where it stood 14 years ago!
And what if - as should be the case with all who are retired, and arguably those saving for their retirement - you are investing to grow your Income Stream! (Then again, SuperFunds - to their shame - don't disclose Income in their 'Change in Value' reporting. Why? Because they're chasing Growth, presumably. Oh dear.)
Then there's good old 'defensive'! Defence against what? Of course: the V-word! (Volatility, that is, not Virus.) And of course, for the growth chasers (read Analysts, Strategists - aka Speculators, Gamblers), it means that proportion that you invest in non-growth assets; effectively, that proportion you don't invest. Because you're scared of volatility. (Not loss, mind you: just volatility.)
No wonder we have a whole industry in disarray! We neither agree on what we are talking about, nor agree on the meaning of the terminology we use to talk about it!
Imagine the state of the medical profession in similar state
Post script
I am, by nature, education and experience, a conservative investor. My own funds are conservatively balanced, mainly in good old-fashioned Australian 'blue chip' Industrials, other than for a small Cash reserve.
Why? Because, firstly, I like their defensive quality of generating a consistent, reliable and growing income-stream. And secondly, because I'm not prepared to stake my financial security - the security of my retirement income - on speculative capital growth. And I don't have to be concerned with the V-word.
So, ASIC, how do you rate my risk profile?