Despite being a growing reservoir of funds under management, this critically important pool of capital is confronting mounting problems collating and disseminating key data in a timely manner.
The ratings house is pinning its growth strategy on a revamped methodology that increases the emphasis on governance to 25 per cent – a timely move considering APRA’s proposed reforms.
Australia ranks poorly with country bias
Australian super funds tend to pride themselves on their international outlook and the level and diversification of their offshore exposures, notwithstanding the historical volatility of the Australian dollar. However, after adjusting for the size of the Australian market and several other factors, we are ranked only 11th in terms of avoiding ‘home country bias’.
A German researcher, Helena Kleinert, has written a paper called “Cultural Influences on Domestic and Foreign Bias in International Asset Allocation”. In it she looked at home country and foreign country biases after considering 15 variables grouped into six categories: economic development, stock market development, capital control, investor protection, cultural dimensions and familiarity.
Australia is ranked 16th out of the 26 countries studied for home country bias, with an average of 80.8 per cent of institutional investments allocated domestically. But the US is ranked 26th despite having almost the same level of domestic investment with 80.9 per cent. The country with the highest home country bias was Turkey, followed by Chile, Malaysia, Denmark and Norway.
This is an edited version of the researcher’s table:
Rank Country Actual allocation %
1 Turkey 98.6
2 Chile 79.2
3 Malaysia 95.9
4 Denmark 45.2
5 Norway 42.8
6 Finland 46.4
7 Belgium 48.9
8 Russia 99.6
9 Singapore 46.0
10 Sth Africa 87.5
11 Brazil 97.5
12 Sth Korea 93.2
13 India 99.7
14 Sweden 53.9
15 Hong K. 81.3
16 Australia 80.8
17 Spain 87.1
18 Italy 48.8
19 Switz’land 53.9
20 Canada 73.0
21 France 78.4
22 Holland 26.1
23 Germany 78.4
24 Japan 86.3
25 UK 62.4
26 USA 80.9
