Monday 16 May 2011

Bonds teach stocks a thing or two



David Potts
April 24, 2011

    The tortoise and the hare.
    Tortoise and hare...there's a lot to be said for the slow but steady approach offered by bonds when it comes to investing.
    Once the poor relation of the investment world, 'steady-as-she goes' bonds continue to lay down a solid track record.
    Time heals all wounds but it still hasn't fixed the sharemarket.
    In any of the past five years you would have done better with an online bank deposit than in the average share.
    Go back 10 years, so you get the benefit of the biggest bull run ever in the sharemarket, and the picture should be different.
    Only it isn't. It's neck and neck between shares and, of all things, government bonds.
    In fact, at the low point of the financial crisis, bonds had done better than shares for the previous 20 years.
    Roger Bridges, who as head of fixed income at Tyndall Investment Management runs a bond fund, says: ''I was telling everyone here that maybe our fund is the growth asset now.''
    Fiddling with the starting or finish year, you can manipulate the returns to put the sharemarket in a better light but the point is, bonds aren't just a poor relation.
    They're where you go when everything else goes wrong. Or rather, they're protection before everything goes wrong.
    Financial planners see bonds, which are less volatile and make investing less of a punt, as insurance against the sharemarket.
    Whatever happens, a gilt-edge bond will always pay and you're guaranteed to get your money back.
    Providing a decent return is also true of fixed-income securities generally - that is, anything that pays a set interest rate and gives you your money back at the end.
    Oh, so they're glorified term deposits then?
    Not quite. The difference is you can get in or out of bonds whenever you want.
    But there's a more subtle and, when the crunch comes, critical difference with government and bank-issued bonds and chasing the best cash return. They aren't punting on either the China boom going forever or the US economy hitting its stride in the near future. That's what an investment in the sharemarket boils down to but it's also true of cash.
    One is chasing growth in its own right and the other high interest rates, which are a side effect of it.
    To put it another way, super funds or any other portfolio that is made up of shares and cash is a one-way bet on economic growth. As the GFC showed, that can't always be counted on.
    ''They're betting everything on the favourite and not covering themselves,'' Bridges says.
    Still, there's a reason that most avoid bonds. Put it this way - the fact that they've been doing better than shares says a lot more about the sharemarket.
    Yields on government bonds range from about 5.10 per cent for three years to 5.5 per cent for 10 years. But the banks have finally realised there's a yield gap here and are offering something better.
    The Commonwealth Bank was the first to issue a retail bond last year. It pays a fixed 1.05 per cent above the variable 90-day bank-bill rate, which works out at just under 6 per cent.
    Since the top term-deposit rate is 7.15 per cent for five years offered by Rabobank, that doesn't look crash hot.
    The market agrees, having marked the $100 five-year bonds (ASX code CBAHA) down to about $99, which bumps the yield up to just over 6 per cent if you buy at that price.
    The Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has topped that, offering an extra 1.4 per cent above the bank-bill rate, a yield of about 6.3 per cent for a three-year bond.
    Unlike the CBA's, though, it's trading in the market (code BENHA) at a premium so the yield is slightly lower for newcomers. Um, trading may be too strong a word.
    The bond goes for weeks without a single trade but at least the buy quote is above the $100 issue price. Since both have a floating rather than a fixed rate, they protect you against a Reserve Bank rise.
    The higher rates go, the more they pay. That should also protect from rising inflation, which food and petrol prices suggest is starting to stir.
    Incidentally, the government also has an inflation-protecting bond. The Treasury-indexed bond adjusts the face value every quarter by the rise in the consumer price index.
    Only institutions can bid but you can pick one up in the market through a fixed-interest dealer or broker.
    The only trouble is that while it protects you against inflation, it doesn't do much else. The interest rate is paltry - on the latest series issued last week it was just 2.5 per cent.
    Frankly, if you're worried about inflation then you'd be better off in something offering high interest.
    After all the CBA or Bendigo bonds are tied to the 90-day bank-bill yield, itself based on the official cash rate. If inflation goes up, so will the cash rate as the Reserve combats it.
    The banks have other fixed-income securities linked to the bill rate as well, which are riskier but in return pay more. Income securities are one. These were a fad for a while in the early noughties but all came to grief.
    Yet that's what makes the few survivors attractive - their prices have been marked down so far from their $100 face value that the yield is pushed up.
    Or to put it another way, a dollar paid in interest on a $90 investment is a better return than on $100.
    A curiosity is they're supposed to last forever, like the mad bunny in the battery ad on television. There's no maturity date on which you're promised your money back. So the only way out is by selling them on the market (they're listed on the ASX).
    The four left were issued by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Macquarie, NAB and Suncorp. ''We like the NAB income securities, which, priced about $82, give a running yield of 7.5 per cent,'' says a director of FIIG Securities, Brad Newcombe.
    ''If interest rates go up, you get leverage to the bank-bill rate that will also go up.''
    And because of the Basel III changes to bank liquidity rules, he predicts they'll be restructured ''and that would be the kicker for an increase in the price''.
    For an even higher yield, ANZ, CBA and Westpac have converting preference shares, one of a group of securities known as hybrids because they're not quite bonds but they aren't shares either.
    Truth be told, though, they're closer to shares. After all, the reason their post-tax yield is higher is that the ''interest'' they pay is fully franked and so comes with a 30 per cent tax credit.
    And if that doesn't reveal their true nature, try this. At maturity they typically convert into shares of the mother stock with the bonus of a small discount.
    The most popular bank hybrids are the CBA's series of Perls. Each differs slightly from the other and you can still buy the last three in the market, all below their $200 issue price.
    The bank redeemed Perls II two years ago for cash on the so-called rollover (as distinct from maturity) date.
    Because series III and IV are trading below their $200 face value, you'd be looking at a capital gain of about $15 and $5 respectively when the bank redeems it.
    That's an income of about 6 per cent fully franked plus an eventual capital gain of a further 7.5 per cent for the IIIs and another 2.5 per cent for the IVs.
    Perls V are trading at a premium and little wonder, since the margin above the bank-bill rate is a hefty 3.4 per cent and so the yield is 8.3 per cent fully franked if you subscribed originally, or just under 5 per cent if you were to buy them now, which probably wouldn't be a good idea.
    But wait, there's more. When the bank hybrids convert into shares there's a bonus discount of 1 per cent or 2 per cent.
    ANZ has two series of converting preference shares (ANZPA and ANZPB), with margins of 3.1 per cent and 2.5 per cent respectively. Both trade at a premium that brings their annual yield to about 8 per cent fully franked, taking into account the bonus at conversion time.
    Remember: the yield on bank hybrids can change every quarter - though it's unlikely to drop in the foreseeable future - when they also pay dividends.
    An exception is Macquarie's MQCPA, which has two years left to run paying a fixed 11.1 per cent and isn't franked.
    Still, that works out at an annual 10.3 per cent for two years based on its last traded price, which is a lot better than you'll get from a term deposit.
    Because they trade on the ASX their price can drop, too, a fate that has befallen all those issued earlier than last year.
    It just takes one bank to break ranks with a new issue offering a better return to mark down the prices of everything that's come before it.

    Taking a safe punt

    The heat seems to be coming out of the term-deposit war between the banks.
    If you're hoarding cash because you don't trust the sharemarket, don't have enough for a property and think bonds are lame, there is an alternative. Rather than go the whole hog into the sharemarket, you can dip your toe in and still be assured of a decent return.
    So-called step-up securities trading on the ASX are returning close to double digits. These convert to shares in the mother stock on a certain date, or are extended with a higher interest rate.
    Australand Assets (AAZPB) pays 4.8 per cent above the 90-day bank-bill rate, which has been hovering around 4.9 per cent, or 10 per cent since you can pick them up for $95 despite their face value of $100.
    Or there's Multiplex Sites (MXUPA) with interest at 3.9 per cent above the bill rate but because they're trading well below their face value "there's a 20 per cent upside'', so long as they're redeemed, says a director of FIIG Securities, Brad Newcombe.
    Another well-regarded step-up security is Goodman PLUS, which has also been heavily marked down by the market, so boosting its yield. Its step-up date is March 2013, when it will be either swapped for its $100 face value or the interest rate will be increased. In the meantime, there's an 8.5 per cent yield based on its last price of $80.
    "When investing in fixed income, a combination of government bonds, semi-government bonds, high-quality corporate bonds and some listed subordinated hybrids is prudent,'' says the head of investment strategy and consulting at UBS Wealth Management, George Boubouras. ''Even an aggressive investor should not hold more than 25 per cent of their fixed-income weighting in listed, subordinated hybrids."
    He recommends conservative investors, such as those whose super is paying a pension, should have 40 per cent of their investments in domestic fixed income.
    For moderate investors it would be 15 per cent and for aggressive ones 10 per cent. Mortgage funds were once a popular outlet for finding a good fixed income. Not any more. The chief executive of Hewison Private Wealth, financial planner John Hewison, won't touch them.
    "Remember Estate Mortgage?'' he says. ''People see them as being like a bank account but they're long-term securities and have a propensity to be frozen. We like to have absolute control over a property and secured by a first mortgage."

     http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/bonds-teach-stocks-a-thing-or-two-20110423-1ds10.html#ixzz1MT6RDmte

    Tortoise versus Hare


    Investing in Retirement


    Stability back in fashion

    Lesley Parker
    April 20, 2011
      Balancing act...investors are advised that a diverse portfolio is important to achieve an adequate income in retirement.
      Balancing act...investors are advised that a diverse portfolio is important to achieve an adequate income in retirement.
      Three years after the peak of the global financial crisis, retirees and pre-retirees remain wary, saying they would rather have peace of mind than chase high returns, according to new research.
      In a survey late last year, researcher Investment Trends asked 1000 retirees and pre-retirees what they thought was most important in a retirement investment product and they overwhelmingly valued stability over high returns.
      The five features the respondents ranked most highly were tax effectiveness (which was rated as essential, very important or important by 91 per cent of those surveyed); easy access to their money (87 per cent); a product that was easy to understand (86 per cent); stable returns (86 per cent) and protection against market falls (77 per cent).
      ''These results turn established wisdom on its head, with stable returns proving much more important than higher returns or lower costs,'' says the chief operating officer of Investment Trends, Tim Cobb. ''That may reflect investors' experiences during the GFC, with many experiencing large and unpredictable fluctuations in their retirement savings.''
      ANNUITIES AND GUARANTEES
      Cobb says the results indicate it might be ''time for investors and advisers to take another look at annuities and some of the innovative new retirement income products which offer protection against market falls''.
      Annuity-style products, with their contracted rates of return, have been a hard sell for many years and especially while the sharemarket offered double-digit returns.
      However, anyone who watches television will have seen how Challenger's ad campaign taps into the anxiety retirees are feeling by promoting ''safe, reliable retirement income'' from its annuity products.
      With these products, you make an initial investment in return for agreed income payments over a contracted period. The rate of return is fixed at the outset and doesn't fall if markets go down - but it doesn't rise if markets go up, either.
      Then there are ''capital-protected'' products. AXA's North product, for instance, offers an optional ''protected retirement guarantee'' feature that locks in guaranteed income.
      Advisers say clients, particularly retirees, are more wary because of the GFC but their advice to them is not to give up on risk - market risk - only to take on other forms of risk, such as the danger that inflation will erode the value of their retirement savings.
      An HLB Mann Judd financial adviser, Chris Hogan, says that while most of his older clients are more risk-averse, ''they still recognise that growth assets are an essential component of their investment portfolios''.
      NO FREE LUNCH
      A financial adviser and director of Multiforte Financial Services, Kate McCallum, who also finds retirees in particular are more risk-aware, says ''it comes down to the practical challenge of how to protect capital while achieving the return they want''.
      She gets the occasional inquiry from a client about annuity or capital-protected products ''but we're not fans of protected products as they're very expensive and we believe a well-constructed portfolio that's managed - not set-and-forget - can be a better option''.''I suppose the key message here is: there's no free lunch,'' McCallum says.
      ''There's a cost of having the capital protection and the certainty and this needs to be evaluated for each client [with regard to] their comfort level with volatility and their return requirements.''
      Hogan says he doesn't see much interest in annuities and capital-protected products, either. ''Our view is that we don't need to get too tricky with innovative products,'' he says. ''Protection is available simply and cheaply through holding term deposits, uncomplicated fixed-interest funds and cash'', as part of a diversified portfolio.
      He, too, notes that capital protection typically comes at a cost. ''For an annuity, the cost is lack of liquidity,'' he says, with your capital sum locked up for a set period.
      People also need to compare the return being offered on an annuity with term deposits, which currently have quite high interest rates.
      ''For other structured products with capital protection built in, the underlying fees can be very high,'' he says. ''We generally don't think the cost is worth it.''
      (In a recent relaunch of the North platform, AXA - well aware of criticisms concerning cost - cut its standard administration fees, halving the rate for smaller account sizes from about 0.9 per cent to 0.4 per cent.)
      McCallum notes that with many capital-protected products there's a set period for the protection to work. ''If you have to break the set term, there are usually hefty penalties associated with that.''
      DIVERSIFICATION IS BEST
      The head of retail for Australian Unity Investments, Cameron Dickman, says those who keep their money in cash aren't necessarily working towards their ultimate goal of having a retirement income that lasts as long as they do.
      While keeping a significant proportion of retirement savings in cash options such as term deposits minimises market risk, ''it exposes investors to a number of other risks, including inflation risk, income risk and opportunity risk'', he says.
      Inflation risk is the risk that capital locked up in non-growth assets, such as term deposits, will have less value at the end of, say, a two-, three- or five-year term.
      Opportunity risk is the risk that you'll miss out on better returns and capital growth from opportunities that might become available while your money is locked up.
      Perhaps the biggest risk at the moment is income risk, Dickman says.
      A stable, regular income will become a priority for the baby boomers now starting to enter retirement but they won't get that from a term deposit for which interest is often paid at the end of the term, he says.
      ''Retirees, in particular, need to … find a balance between their desire for low-risk investments and their need for returns that will generate ongoing income in their retirement,'' Dickman says. ''It comes back to the value of taking a balanced approach through a diversified portfolio and understanding that different investments offer different benefits, returns and risks.''
      Key points
      • Retirees are more interested in stable returns than high returns or low costs.
      • Capital-protected and annuity products tap into this concern.
      • But advisers say the cost of such products has to be weighed against the promised peace of mind.
      • They warn that being in cash to avoid market risk means you take on other risks, such as inflation.
      • Diversification is the best protection, they say.


       http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/stability-back-in-fashion-20110419-1dlzl.html#ixzz1MT4O7Zax

      Dollar hits global gains



      May 11, 2011
        Downside of strong dollar...global shares produced an average annual return of minus 4 per cent in the past decade.
        Downside of strong dollar...global shares produced an average annual return of minus 4 per cent in the past decade.
        Blame the terrible returns on international shares during the past decade on the Australian dollar. There was a dramatic dip in the value of the Australian dollar in 2008 and into early 2009, when sentiment about world economic growth was at its gloomiest, but otherwise it's been on a steady rise during those 10 years.
        Most people access international shares through managed funds that allow the currency effects to flow through to investors.
        The dollar's rise has more than sliced away the gains on overseas sharemarkets, leaving investors in the red.
        During the 10 years to the end of March this year, international shares have produced an average annual return of minus 4 per cent.
        With losses compounding during such a long time, the original sum invested 10 years ago would be worth about half today, after accounting for inflation.
        But the same portfolio, hedged or protected from exchange-rate fluctuations, has produced an average annual return of about 3 per cent during the same period. The difference between hedged and unhedged is 7 percentage points each year.
        Investors could be excused for thinking they had invested in a foreign exchange fund rather than an international share fund.
        About half the typical portfolio will be invested in US-listed shares, as the US makes up about half of capitalisation of developed-word sharemarkets. That means the US dollar is the currency exchange rate with the biggest impact on the returns of the unhedged portfolio of international shares. A decade ago, one Australian dollar was buying about US50¢. Last week it was buying more than $US1.10.
        After 10 years of losses, many investors will be wondering what they should do now. Assuming they still want the diversification benefits of global shares, should they switch to a fund that removes the currency effects on their returns? During the next few years you would think the Australian dollar will stay high because of the resources boom keeping commodities prices high and Australian interest rates relatively high. Given the Australian dollar is so highly valued now, if there was to be a change in the value of our dollar, it is much more likely to be down than up.
        If that is right, there may be nothing to gain from being in an international shares fund that removes the currency risk. There may be more to gain from leaving the international shares exposure unhedged to benefit from any dips in the value of the Australian dollar.
        Another approach may be to include more exposure to emerging markets. The typical global shares fund has only a small exposure to emerging markets. But shares listed in China and India and other emerging countries are likely to keep doing well. Perhaps the best option is to consider managers who actively manage the currency risk, have a decent exposure to emerging markets and are not afraid to invest differently to their peers. This approach is more likely to be found among, but not limited to, boutique fund managers who specialise in managing global shares funds.



        Reap the fruits of your labour



        Annette Sampson
        May 11, 2011
          Matter of choice...the fund you choose is a critical decision.
          Matter of choice...the fund you choose is a critical decision. Photo: Erin Jonasson
          Don't ruin your retirement by leaving your money in a lagging super fund, writes Annette Sampson.
          Inertia is costing super fund members tens of thousands of dollars in lost earnings and future retirement benefits.
          While most employees have the right to choose where their money is invested, or at least choose an appropriate investment option within their fund, the vast majority don't exercise that right.
          This is creating a lucky-dip universe where those fortunate enough to land in a good fund do well but others unknowingly remain in underperforming funds that can severely limit their lifestyle when they reach retirement.
          .Click for more photos

          Money Tables

          .
          • .
          • ,
          • .
          • .
          • .
          Research for Money by SuperRatings shows that the median return for super funds generally quoted in news reports disguises the fact that some funds perform much better than the average - and some much worse.
          Despite the Howard government's introduction of fund choice, about 80 per cent of super money remains invested with employers' default funds. Much of this money is in the default option of that fund - typically a balanced portfolio, which SuperRatings defines as being one that has 60 per cent to 76 per cent of its investments in so-called growth assets such as shares and property.
          Over the 12 months to March 31, the median balanced fund returned a solid 5.1 per cent - largely thanks to the post-GFC recovery in global sharemarkets.
          But if you were unlucky enough to be in the worst performer on SuperRatings's database, you would have lost 1.9 per cent over the year.
          By contrast, the best performer returned 8.2 per cent - more than 10 percentage points better than the laggard and three percentage points better than the median.
          MASSIVE DIFFERENCE
          Of course, super isn't a short-term game and the fact that your fund may not have done well over a particular 12-month period generally isn't cause to run screaming in the opposite direction.
          The managing director of SuperRatings, Jeff Bresnahan, says different funds do well at different points in the market cycle and he would generally recommend investors judge theirs over five years to seven years to gain a clearer picture of how well they do under a wider range of conditions.
          But even over these longer periods the differences can be substantial.
          Over the past five years, SuperRatings says the best-performing fund has returned 5.3 per cent a year while the worst has lost 0.9 per cent. Over the past 10 years, the best performer has returned 7.3 per cent a year, versus 2.8 per cent for the bottom-of-the-pack fund.
          To put this into perspective, it says someone who invested $100,000 in both funds five years ago would now have $125,696 if they had been in the top performer; $95,582 in the worst. Five years is not a long time in terms of retirement savings but even over this sort of period, being in the wrong fund could have cost up to $30,000.
          Over the past 10 years, SuperRatings says, $100,000 would have grown to $201,924 in the best fund and $131,549 in the worst. That's a difference of about $70,000 and while the top fund gave investors a healthy return, the bottom fund merely kept pace with inflation - lagging the performance of even the median cash fund.
          Bresnahan says the past 10 years have been a good test of how funds cope with a full range of market conditions. ''We had the tech bubble and crash, then the rally in mainstream shares, the GFC and the mini rally following it,'' he says. ''If your fund has underperformed by a big margin over 10 years you'd have to consider whether it warrants sacking it.''
          Bresnahan says that over five years, a five-percentage-point annual difference in returns generates a difference in outcomes of just under 30 per cent; over seven years, the difference is almost 40 per cent.
          ''That's where apathy costs [investors] big time, because we don't penalise managers who get it wrong.''
          AVOID THE DUDS
          The chief executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Fiona Reynolds, says even a 1 per cent difference in returns can make a huge difference over your working life. She says inertia is costing some fund members dearly and the government is trying to address this problem through its proposed super reforms.
          These include the introduction of a new low-cost default fund to be known as MySuper, having the regulator put out information so consumers can more easily compare funds and streamlining the administration of funds and making it easier for consumers to transfer between them.
          However, Reynolds fears many consumers will remain unengaged with their super until their account balances grow to a size where they realise this is serious money.
          The principal of Mercer, Russell Mason, says it is disappointing to compare financial homework with all the work people put into researching a new-car purchase. ''If only they put the same effort into selecting their super fund,'' he says. ''It would have a far greater effect on their situation.''
          However, Mason warns that simply opting for the best-performing fund without knowing why it has done well can be dangerous - particularly if you use shorter-term performance results.
          ''One of the warning signs [that a fund might be a dud] is if it is performing well outside the range of other funds - either on the downside or the upside,'' he says.
          ''If 90 per cent of funds returned 7 [per cent] to 12 per cent last year and yours returned 3 per cent or 20 per cent, it should ring alarm bells. We have seen examples of extraordinary performance that comes about because of high risk and leaves investors very exposed if circumstances change.''
          DON'T RELY ON LABELS
          Mason warns that even within a definition such as ''balanced'' there can be legitimate reasons why one fund will do better than another. He says there is a big difference between having 60 per cent of your fund in growth assets and having 75 per cent. If two funds have the same official weighting, one might use more passive investments such as index funds while the other may have more illiquid assets such as infrastructure and private equity, or be more inclined to use more active fund managers.
          ''The vast majority of members have a poor understanding of what they're invested in,'' Mason says. ''Many hear 'balanced' and think it means a 50:50 mix of defensive and more risky investments.''
          The head of investment consulting at Mercer, Graeme Mather, says a joint effort by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Financial Services Council to produce a standard risk measure should help consumers better understand the risk-return trade-off. He says the move will require funds to estimate the number of negative years that investors can expect in every 20 years and they will then be rated on a scale of one to seven using that information.
          While that doesn't address other risks in super funds, such as liquidity risk or the risk that the people running the fund will have problems, Mason says it should at least help consumers understand why a fund with a 10 per cent return but a low-risk rating may actually be a better prospect than one that has returned 12 per cent or 15 per cent by taking on much more risk.
          AGE MATTERS
          Reynolds says consumers should also be aware that if a fund is doing its job properly, it should tailor its investment strategy to its membership. This may mean a fund with a largely young membership will have different returns to one with mainly older members but both could be doing a good job.
          ''It's about what works for members rather than just how [the fund] compares to someone else,'' she says. ''There has been too much following the rest of the industry.''
          Mather says one legacy of the GFC has been increased volatility in investment returns - though it has also created opportunities. SuperRatings'a figures show the effect of the GFC has by no means worked its way out of the system, with median fund returns over the past three and five years lagging, or barely in line with, inflation.
          Over the past three years, the median balanced fund has returned just 1.3 per cent a year while the return over five years is a marginally better 2.5 per cent. ''People might look at that and say they'd have been better with their money in a bank account but most people wouldn't save for retirement without super,'' Reynolds says. ''The returns still don't look too good at the moment but for many people, retirement is still a long way off and over that time they'll be better off in the compulsory system.''
          Set for double-digit returns
          SuperRatings's figures show funds are on track for a double-digit return this financial year, which will come as good news to fund members still smarting from the losses incurred during the GFC.
          The managing director of SuperRatings, Jeff Bresnahan says while the markets are still volatile and returns will swing up and down from month to month, the median balanced fund returned 9.53 per cent in the nine months to March 30 and could top 10 per cent if investment conditions remain positive.
          Australian shares are the biggest driver of fund returns but Bresnahan says the good news is that funds haven't just been riding on the market's coat-tails.
          He says the median Australian share option has outperformed the broader sharemarket over one-, three-, five- and 10-year periods, even after fees and taxes. He says balanced funds have benefited from this.
          The two top-performing balanced funds - Catholic Super's balanced option and Local Super's growth option - both returned 8 per cent or more through the year to March 31 (though Local Super's conservative option did better with 8.5 per cent) and the top Australian share fund, NGS Super, produced a 10 per cent return. See tables page 6.
          Bresnahan says capital stable funds have benefited from a flight to US, German and Australian bonds. International shares have also contributed to some funds' profits, though the rising Australian dollar has taken the edge off those returns for funds that don't hedge their currency exposure.
          The SuperRatings tables show the top international share options have recorded stellar returns in the past year - as high as 11.1 per cent - though the GFC still has most funds in the red over the past three to five years.
          However, the extent to which funds benefited from the recovery in overseas markets has depended on their currency hedging. SuperRatings says the MSCI World Index's return over the past 12 months was 12.36 per cent, after hedging against a rising Australian dollar. But the unhedged version of the index returned 4.25 per cent.
          Bresnahan says most funds in the SuperRatings survey partially hedge their currency exposure, typically 26 per cent to 50 per cent of international portfolios.
          The head of investment consulting for Mercer, Graeme Mather, says many funds have reduced their level of hedging to about 35 per cent to take advantage of a potential winding back of the Aussie dollar. This has taken gloss off returns but may pay off if the dollar depreciates.