A Reliable Test of Super performance

Nearly all of us are superannuants or potential one, and the YFYS (Your Future Your Super) reforms are aimed to enhance the experience of people. We can all agree that the reform plan has good intentions. Consequently, it is vital that it serves its intended function, hence, one of the most crucial reform initiatives is a test of the returns on investments. 

Unfortunately, studies have shown that performance testing does not produce the desired results. Statistically, the performance test will struggle to separate ‘good’ funds from ‘bad’. The potential cost of the limits may outweigh the predicted benefits of the YFYS reforms, and the performance test would considerably restrict the investment strategies of super funds. At Omura Wealth Advisers, we have been focusing on this aspect, which have equally form parts of the superannuation advice australia we offer to people.

Details on the YFYS Performance Evaluation

The YFYS test measures how well an investment has done in the past. For context, when managing portfolios, super funds primarily do two things: (1) they select the asset allocation, and (2) they put that asset allocation into action – what we call “implementation,” either by investing directly or by hiring external asset managers and paying those managers to do so.

Asset allocation (which has a significant effect on performance) is not considered in the YFYS performance test; instead, only the effectiveness of the implementation is evaluated. To do this, it correlates a user’s portfolio exposures to a select group of public market indexes.

Results Tend to Shift With Time

Even if a super fund may have high potential and be predicted to perform well over time, there is still the possibility that it will fail the performance test because of the existence of unpredictability. Similarly, there is a potential, again owing to unpredictability, that a fund with inadequate processes will pass a performance test. Increased randomness makes success or failure as likely as flipping a coin. The effects of variability become less noticeable over longer time periods.

Superannuation advisors may recognise these cases as examples of type I (misidentifying a “good”) and type II (misidentifying a “bad”) mistakes. These are a rough reflection of the test’s statistical reliability. Both types of mistakes should be uncommon in a well-designed test.

We discovered that the YFYS performance is hindered by two design features.

The first is that, as was previously said, the test does not consider the impact of asset allocation performance on the fund’s overall performance.

A second method is to use standards or benchmarks. The whole universe of alternative assets, as well as private equity, unlisted property, and unlisted infrastructure, as well as all types of credit and inflation-linked bonds, are not adequately benchmarked. The performance test results as a result are highly unpredictable.

Fortunately, the YFYS performance test will be quite useful for identifying funds with severely low implementation performance. Unfortunately, the test doesn’t perform well under less severe circumstances, which are more likely to be encountered in the future.

A study found that the YFYS performance test had a 35% chance of incorrectly labelling a “good” fund as “poor,” and a 42% chance of incorrectly labelling a “poor” fund as “good,” when calibrated to plausible future situations.

Both consumers and businesses may benefit from an objective performance evaluation. Both are currently unavailable from the YFYS performance evaluation.

 Will the test put limits on Super funds’ ability to maximise returns?

When it comes to retirement savings accounts, the costs associated with failing the performance test can be devastating. This means that we anticipate that they will handle their investments in such a way that they have a strong probability of succeeding on the exam.

In the business world, this is referred to as “tracking error,” and it involves improving performance by bringing it closer to the standard. This in turn entails reducing holdings in the aforementioned investments since they are not fairly represented in the test’s benchmark (it is found it would take over 50 indices to create a reasonably effective implementation test).

If current investing techniques are continued, Super funds may be forced to make frequent changes to their portfolios in response to short-term underperformance, which might result in significant transaction costs.

In the future, Super funds will look for a consistent investing strategy that offers a high probability of passing the performance test with minimal need for regular portfolio rebalancing.

How much of a change would there need to be made from the existing state of portfolios, which prioritises the best interests of members, to the future state, which must take into consideration the performance test? This is a reasonable representation of the limitations imposed by the performance evaluation. Superannuation advisors at Omura Wealth Advisers have always taken into consideration the performance test of super funds before giving a superannuation advice to clients.

The opportunity cost of the YFYS performance test-implied portfolio limitations was determined using conservative assumptions. In all, it is expect for them to reach a specific threshold of cap annually, which can be of more benefits from the YFYS changes over a decade.

Is there any way we can improve upon the YFYS performance evaluation?

Consumers stand to gain from a well-thought-out performance evaluation. Through a combination of academic methods and practical knowledge, we have found problems with the performance evaluation that will have real-world consequences for customers. Including an extra statistic that emphasises risk-adjusted returns seems like a straightforward way to improve the test. This would fix a lot of the problems and provide shoppers the security they deserve.

Performance evaluation issues shouldn’t actually be a big worry for consumers generally, if you have a good and professional superannuation advisor in Australia to guide your retirement plans. It is better safe than sorry, it is best advisable to consult and be guided in the process of your super funds performance that to go all out on your own in trial.