Asset Management

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Financial Services Royal Commission spent the last couple of weeks uncovering misconduct in the superannuation industry. But as we clean up superannuation we should also fix another deficiency – the need to provide life-long incomes for retirees.
A recent survey found a third of Australians over 80 had run out of money. The rest want reliable life-long incomes. Funnily enough, there are many projects that need funds and can produce cash flows for decades – infrastructure particularly.
Superannuation funds are increasingly making infrastructure investments themselves. What is needed is a way to link the long-term cash flows derived from physical assets straight through to pensioners.
Investment markets are currently too conflicted to do so.
The status quo
Companies, and even governments entering long term projects mainly use short-to-medium-term bank loans to fund their activities. These loans must be refinanced regularly.
For reasons that the Financial Systems Inquiry could not explain, companies often borrow overseas and so are subject not just to the risk of changing interest rates, but also to fluctuating foreign exchange rates.
To reduce these risks they may enter into sophisticated hedging programs, but this only serves to move risk elsewhere in the financial sector.
Banks, which provide short term finance for long term projects, suffer regular liquidity crises when depositors want to withdraw their money. An IMF report records 129 crises in the 40 years before 2010.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232240/original/file-20180816-2903-1ufngwx.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Banking crises.
At the same time, about 70% of superannuation benefits are taken as “account-based pensions” – regular income streams that the pensioners draw down to pay their expenses.
This money has been invested in thousands of investment options, all of which provide liquidity so that pensioners can sell assets at any time.
But if the money is taken as regular monthly income, all of this liquidity is unnecessary – the funds could have been invested in something that produces monthly cash flows.
The alternative
Consider, for instance, a large infrastructure project that will generate revenue over 50 years, increasing over time more or less in line with inflation.
One could design a financial instrument that paid investors a fixed proportion of that revenue. If the investors were superannuation funds, they could issue annuity contracts that paid out these cash flows to pensioners for life.
The borrowers would face lower risks, as their repayments move together with their revenue. Both borrowers and investors would be unaffected by changes to interest rates or the market value of investments.
Why hasn’t this already been done? It is not that the cash flows from long-term investments are insufficient. They currently exceed all private and public pensions.
These kinds of financial instruments are already used on a very small scale in Australia.
The major obstacle to their wider use seems to be that the financial sector feeds off the excess liquidity in the market. Banks make money by rolling over short-term loans. Investment managers, stockbrokers and exchanges make money by trading superannuation assets.
The whole sector operates under a paradigm where liquidity is paramount. So they fail to address the risks this presents to banks, economies and to retirees.
It is not that people do not like these “life annuities” when they are explained appropriately, but that their advisers and other experts active in the financial sector at best ignore them and at worst actively discourage them (by emphasising the “need” for liquidity).
The ongoing problems of the financial sector must surely make us ask whether it is fit for purpose? Or, at least, how well is it fulfilling its functions of allocating capital and managing risks?
We need appropriate pipes to ensure the cash generated by long-term assets flows through to fund pensioners. What we have instead is a flood of liquidity, which regularly buffets not only the financial sector but the entire economy.
The impetus to fund both long-term projects and life-long pensions must ultimately come from superannuation fund trustees. They appoint those who select assets and must set up the systems to ensure the cash flows are paid to pensioners.
To do this, they must first free themselves from the paradigm that liquidity is paramount. They then need to employ people and consultants whose loyalty is to the members and not the investment markets.
They will have to set up structures to be able to evaluate the soundness of new projects, and secondary markets to allow for trading as necessary. Government and regulators will have to permit funds to collaborate in this process.

Trustees will also need to take the lead and give members access to annuity products, and disinterested and expert advice as to when these are suitable.
Anthony Asher, Associate Professor, UNSW
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-trustees-should-find-long-term-assets-for-their-pensioners-101370" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Superannuation trustees should find long-term assets for their pensioners: Anthony Asher

<html><body>
Global real estate investment manager TH Real Estate has appointed Rick Marston as head of asset management in Australia.
Marston will be responsible for asset management strategies and extracting value from real estate investments that TH Real Estate acquires on behalf of its Australian funds and private account clients.
He brings over 15 years’ experience working in senior positions across the real estate sector, including roles at Grosvenor Estates in London, Dexus and AMP Capital in Sydney, and most recently as associate director at Invesco Asset Management.
TH Real Estate, an affiliate of Nuveen, the investment manager of TIAA, is one of the largest real estate investment managers in the world with circa US$114 billion in assets under management globally.
In Australia, TH Real Estate’s core holdings include a half stake in 101 Miller Street and the Greenwood Plaza in North Sydney, as well as investments in Myer Bourke Street in Melbourne, and a 75% interest in Mount Ommaney Shopping Centre in Brisbane.
</body></html>

TH Real Estate appoints Rick Marston to key role

<html><body>
The Swiss AFIAA (Foundation for International Real Estate Investments) has broadened its interest in the Australian real estate market with an “asset swap”. 
The company has bought an office building in Melbourne’s <a href="https://www.realcommercial.com.au/property-offices-vic-melbourne-502382946" target="_blank">628 Bourke Street</a> (above) for its property portfolio for around $181 million. The seller is M&amp;G Real Estate Asia. 
In return, AFIAA has sold its “HQ South” office building at <a href="https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/520-wickham-street-fortitude-valley-qld-4006-2013471731" target="_blank">520 Wickham Street</a> (Fortitude Valley) in Brisbane, which measures nearly 14,000 sqm, to the investor for $119 million. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/09/04/AFIAA_BrisbaneHQ.jpg" alt="">
The Melbourne property is in the CBD and offers around 23,400 sqm of office space and 940 sqm of retail space. Both the lift lobbies and individual floors have been renovated in recent months. One of the key tenants is the insurance company QBE.
AFIAA chief executive Ingo Bofinger said the group was planning further acquisitions in central metropolitan locations as part of its growth strategy. 
“The transaction is a prime example for the implementation of our focus strategy: We are investing the sale price received for HQ South of around AUD 119 million in a larger property in Melbourne, where we already have two more properties,” Bofinger said.
“We are eying further potential to increase rents in excellent locations in Melbourne in particular.” 
Potential properties also include real estate with development potential whose value added is to be enhanced by asset management using refurbishment measures.
In Australia, AFIAA also owns properties in Sydney in addition to two other properties in Melbourne’s CBD. 
AFIAA is an investment foundation under Swiss law that invests foreign real estate assets. Forty-five Swiss pension funds currently invest directly in prime foreign properties through AFIAA. The properties in Australia are centrally managed by the AFIAA office in Sydney. 
The legal consultant for the acquisition and sale was Mills Oakley. 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Swiss AFIAA Foundation does an asset swap deal, buys in Melbourne, sells Brisbane HQ to realty investor 

<html><body>
Altair Asset Management’s move to sell off its entire Australian portfolio of underlying shares in unit trusts citing an impending property market "calamity" and an "overvalued" equity market has been described as an over-reaction by industry executives.
Macquarie Group's former head of real estate business Bill Moss said it was overstated, while economist Saul Eslake was of the view that it was difficult to predict accurately period forecasts of collapses.
Altair’s chairman and investment officer Philip Parker said on Monday the fund had advised clients it would sell "hundreds of millions" of dollars of "underlying shares in the Altair unit trusts and then hand back the cash to those same investors". Interestingly, he has also been named a defendant in a court case brought in by his mother in an unrelated assets case involving his firm. 
“The main reason is in my opinion that there are just too many risks at present, and I cannot justify charging our clients fees when there are so many early warning lead indicators of clear and present danger in property and equity markets now,” he said. 
“I would like to make clear this is not a winding up of Altair, but a decision to hand back client monies out of equities which I deem to be far too risky at this point,” Parker said on livewiremarkets.com.
The risks he listed included the Australian East Coast ‘property bubble’ and its impending correction, China’s property and debt issues later this year, overvalued Australian markets and the unpredictable geo-political situation.
He also made it clear that Altair wasn’t being wound up, but the decision was to hand back client monies out of equities which were deemed “far too risky at this point”.
But Moss was of a different view.
"You could have said that [about China] a long time ago," Moss was cited by saying by Fairfax Media.
Australia's property was experiencing a "one-off adjustment" to yields and values because of "incredible demand" from Chinese investors, Moss said.
"I'm not convinced that it's over. From what I'm seeing, there is still a lot of strong interest from China. I would be looking for the real reason they [Altair] have pulled out," he added.
Meanwhile, Eslake said various hedge funds and economists had in the past predicted a property bust but that he had “always struggled to find credible the period forecasts that there is a collapse around the corner”. 
"Are Australian house prices and household debt high? Yes, of course they are and there are some risks that flow from that."
"But to be a 'calamity' .. you would need some things to occur that I can't see occurring anytime soon," he said.
Montgomery Asset Management funder Roger Montgomery, who knows Parker, told The Australian that his funds may not have had the flexibility to go completely to cash while continuing to manage the money, and he would not have taken the decision lightly.
“You have to give someone a lot of respect for doing that,” Montgomery said. “They are genuinely putting their clients’ interest before their own. They are not taking any fees from it.”
Amid all this, Parker is grabbing more eyeballs, with Fairfax Media reporting that he is one of the defendants named in an action stemming from claims brought by his elderly mother, Faye Mary Parker and F M Parker Pty Ltd.
Faye Mary Parker filed the suit against Attis Capital, its director David Reynolds, and Altair Assets and Pepsec, which is an entity linked to Philip Parker and Altair. 
</body></html>

Altair Asset fund's total Australian selloff questioned by experts

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It is received wisdom in the Australian superannuation industry that bigger is better. The theory goes that funds with more assets under management will benefit from economies of scale, because the costs of running a superannuation fund are largely fixed and do not change much, whether you are managing assets of A$500 million or $50 billion.
This means that funds which have more assets under management will spend proportionally less on administration and overheads. This will allow them to make more competitive returns and supposedly give them an edge in the marketplace. The endpoint of this reasoning is that a market’s conditions will be a “critical threshold” when it comes to size.
Any funds smaller than that threshold would be too inefficient and would eventually succumb to the larger and more efficient competition, being either absorbed into a larger fund (to restore economies of scale) or losing members attracted to greener pastures, as the bigger funds could charge lower fees per member.
<h2>But is this true for industry superannuation funds?</h2>
We decided to look into whether it was indeed the case that larger funds have an advantage in economies of scale over smaller funds. In particular, we were hoping to find signs of healthy competition in the superannuation marketplace, as competition helps assure us that the industry is appropriately serving the needs and demands of consumers. Such competition might take the form of strategic mergers between smaller funds, or attempts by larger funds to advertise their relative efficiency and lure away the members of the smaller funds.
Signs of healthy competition are especially important for the superannuation industry, as one of the largest sectors in the economy and a crucial part of our collective ability to finance our retirement. The review used data from industry funds, which disclose this information in annual reports. Retail (for profit) funds do not always disclose this information.
<h2>Comparing administrative efficiency</h2>
In order to work out whether super funds really do benefit from economies of scale, we looked at the largest and the smallest industry superannuation funds. In particular, we compared them based on the proportion of assets under management spent on administration costs each year. If the theory that “bigger is better” is correct, one would expect to find that larger funds spend a far lower proportion of their total assets on administration costs.
One would expect this difference to be especially prominent given the massive size discrepancy between industry superannuation funds: the largest, Australian Super, held over $90 billion in assets in 2015 compared to the smallest fund, Transport Super, with a relatively miniscule $114 million.
When comparing some of the top dogs to a handful of middle-sized industry funds, there seems to be no marked correlation between size and efficiency:
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124413/width754/image-20160530-879-1jmptgw.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4>
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124413/width754/image-20160530-879-1jmptgw.png" alt="">Source: Fund annual reports
</h4>
This is very surprising, as these funds do vary by quite a large margin of assets; the two mid-sized funds shown hold about $7 billion each, whereas the two large funds hold over $37 billion and $90 billion.
To further check these results we decided to compare a handful of the largest funds to the five smallest. At first glance, this comparison seems to confirm the “bigger is better” theory:
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124414/width754/image-20160530-10041-3xm71g.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4>
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124414/width754/image-20160530-10041-3xm71g.png" alt="">Source: Authors
</h4>
However, when we look past these averages at some of the individual funds (both the largest and the smallest), a much more interesting picture emerges: some of the tiniest funds (in solid lines) seem to be just as cost-effective as the very largest (the dashed lines).
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124415/width754/image-20160530-864-pk9vqg.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124415/width754/image-20160530-864-pk9vqg.png" alt=""></h4>
<h4>Source: Fund annual reports</h4>
<h2>A potentially embarrassing situation</h2>
These findings run in stark contrast to prevailing wisdom about the superannuation sector and indeed the classic economic theory of economies of scale. Not only do the biggest funds have no discernible efficiency advantage over the much smaller mid-sized funds, but there are some positively tiny funds which are just as efficient as some of the very largest.
What is going on here – is this merely some market aberration, or are some smaller funds putting up a heroic David-and-Goliath struggle against their competitors? The question for the big funds is why they have no efficiency advantage over their smallest competitors, and what steps they ought to be taking to rectify a potentially embarrassing situation which has been in place for many years.
<h2>Data</h2>
The data-set used for this article consisted of the financial information of the 14 largest and 5 smallest industry superannuation funds, as ranked by APRA’s statistical publications. The data as to the level of administrative expense came from the annual reports of the superannuation funds. An overview of the funds and the size of their assets is shown below.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124416/width754/image-20160530-903-21i56.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124416/width754/image-20160530-903-21i56.png" alt=""></h4>
<h4>Source: Fund annual reports</h4>
Rob Nicholls is lecturer, UNSW Australia, and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rob-nicholls-91073" target="_blank">here</a>.
This piece has been co-authored with Veevek Doolabh, a final year undergraduate law student at UNSW.
 
</body></html>

Asset Management

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Asset Management

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News