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
    ‘Fundamental tension’ in using the Canadian Model down under: Castle Hall

    Member switching and top-down regulation mean Australia’s super funds will face more bumps on the road to the “Canadian model” of heavy private markets allocations than the Maple Eight pensions they’re so keen on aping.

    Lachlan Maddock | 9th Oct 2024 | More
    Bursting expectations: why bubbles don’t always end in a market rout

    The Magnificent Seven are likely riding into bubble territory but investors might yet avoid a bloody showdown, according to a new analysis by Dutch quantitative manager, Robeco.

    David Chaplin | 4th Oct 2024 | More
    Look beyond macro for opportunities in a ‘desynchronised world’

    Investors obsessing over short-term data points are bound to miss the real changes in the companies they’re buying, according to PineBridge, which is peering beyond the macro for “great, durable investment themes”.

    Lachlan Maddock | 2nd Oct 2024 | More
    Popular