Home / Analysis / ‘Pre-mortems’ key to YFYS test

‘Pre-mortems’ key to YFYS test

Analysis

Trustees should consider “pre-mortem” stress tests and a whole of portfolio approach to the YFYS performance benchmarks to avoid underperformance, according to Willis Towers Watson (WTW).

Jonathan Grigg, WTW director for investments, says avoiding test failure will be a high priority for funds, but not one that can override the obligation to act in members’ best financial interests or the need to manage other objectives and risk in portfolio construction.

In another report on the consequences of the APRA performance test applied under the YFYS legislation, Grigg says: “The use of reverse stress testing (or ‘pre-mortems’) is also likely to be helpful; that is, thinking through the circumstances in which the fund actually fails the test and identifying the actions that could have been taken in order to prevent this. In short, funds should have a game plan for how to deal with underperformance as it unfolds in real time.”

Using a total portfolio approach rather than a “siloed” approach, where assets class buckets are considered in isolation, can help funds more effectively weigh up the competing objectives, while WTW is of the view that some asset classes – such as alternative credit and global equities – offer a higher reward-risk ration assuming they are implemented using “high quality managers and at reasonable fee levels.

The latest report, published July 15, says: “However, every fund will need to assess where it has the best chance of outperformance, based on the make-up of their portfolio and their own beliefs.

“It will also be important to assess portfolio-level impacts and interactions between active positions, noting that ‘active’ in a YFYS performance test context means both traditional active management, and investments that simply differ from the benchmark against which they are measured.”

WTW suggests that super funds first determine the likely implications of failing the test before moving on to assessing the weight placed on failure relative to other factors when considering the overall quality of their portfolio member outcomes, before moving on to the probability of failing the test deemed acceptable and the timeframe over which this will be assessed.

Lachlan Maddock

  • Lachlan is editor of Investor Strategy News and has extensive experience covering institutional investment.




    Print Article

    Related
    How to stop worrying and learn to live with (if not love) tariffs

    A second Trump presidency and the potential for a new US trade regime increases uncertainty as we head into 2025. But despite the prevailing zeitgeist of unease, emerging market investors have various reasons to be sanguine, according to Ninety One

    Alan Siow | 18th Dec 2024 | More
    Why investors should beware the Trump bump

    Tweets aren’t policy, but Yarra Capital believes that financial markets are underestimating Trump’s intentions. Expect 2025 to be the year of higher debt, higher inflation and lower growth – not to mention plenty of volatility.

    Lachlan Maddock | 13th Dec 2024 | More
    How to get a ‘return on time’ in private markets

    Private market returns are nothing to sneeze at, but investors need to consider whether their prospective allocation is worth doing the hard work to understand the liquidity and transparency issues that come with it.

    Lachlan Maddock | 13th Dec 2024 | More
    Popular