Superannuation: When low risk options have higher return, what to do?
The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super  AMP Super  Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement.
Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence.  However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing.  If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one.   However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably.  If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals.  This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings.  This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat:  Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'.  It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner. You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds. First thing to know about investing is that you make money by taking risks. That means the possibility of losing money as well as making it.  There are low risk investments that pretty much always pay out but they don't earn much. Making $200 a month on $10,000 is about 26% per year.  That's vastly more than you are going to earn on low risk assets. If you want that kind of return, you can invest in a diversified portfolio of equities through an equity index fund.  Some years you may make 26% or more.  Other years you may make nothing or lose that much or more.  On average you may earn maybe 7%-10% hopefully. Overall, investing is a game of making money over long horizons.  It's very useful for putting away your $10k now and having hopefully more than that when it comes time to buy a house or retire or something some years into the future.  You have to accept that you might also end up with less than $10K in the end, but you are more likely to make money than to use it. What you describe doesn't seem like a possible situation.  In developed markets, you can't reliably expect anything close to the return you desire from assets that are unlikely to lose you money.  It might be time to re-evaluate your financial goals.  Do you want spending money now, or do you want to invest for use down the road? For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham:  An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted.  The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows.  After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities. Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win. "To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for ""passive"" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)" Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment.  An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time. If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets.  If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. "This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it.  By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions.  But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution.  I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things ""average out"" over time.  If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical.  Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return.  You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion.  When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks?  In many cases, less risks.  This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills).  When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk.  Buying risky securities adds to that risk.  When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky.  You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so.  But I can't be sure." "Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked.  Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A ""whole market"" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re ""risk free"". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)" "This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your ""trade"" turned into an ""investment"", ditch it. Don't get married to positions." Mary Holm, who has a column on money in the NZ Herald, had this to say on the matter: Research shows that over and over again, the top dogs in one decade can be bottom dogs the next decade, and vice versa. Past performance really is no guide to the future. ... Fees are much less likely than returns to change over time. And low fees make a big difference to the long-term growth of your account. So just how low are your fund's fees? Perhaps that means the most sensible bet would be to pick a fund with good (but not necessarily best) historical returns but also with low fees. Personally, I've also included ethics as a factor in the decision, and I chose the ethical investment option offered by Superlife, hoping that it makes a small difference as explained here. (I have no affiliation with Superlife) "I'd question whether a guaranteed savings instrument underperforming the stock market really is a risk, or not?  Rather, you reap what you sow. There's a trade-off, and one makes a choice.  If one chooses to invest in a highly conservative, low-risk asset class, then one should expect lower returns from it.  That doesn't necessarily mean the return will be lower — stock markets could tank and a CD could look brilliant in hindsight — but one should expect lower returns.  This is what we learn from the risk-return spectrum and Modern Portfolio Theory. You've mentioned and discounted inflation risk already, and that would've been one I'd mention with respect to guaranteed savings. Yet, one still accepts inflation risk in choosing the 3% CD, because inflation isn't known in advance.  If inflation happened to be 2% after the fact, that just means the risk didn't materialize.  But, inflation could have been, say, 4%. Nevertheless, I'll try and describe the phenomenon of significantly underperforming a portfolio with more higher-risk assets.  I'd suggest one of: Perhaps we can sum those up as: the risk of ""investing illiteracy""? Alternatively, if one were actually fully aware of the risk-reward spectrum and MPT and still chose an excessive amount of low-risk investments (such that one wouldn't be able to attain reasonable investing goals), then I'd probably file the risk under psychological risk, e.g. overly cautious / excessive risk aversion. Yet, the term ""psychological risk"", with respect to investing, encompasses other situations as well (e.g. chasing high returns.) FWIW, the risk of underperformance also came to mind, but I think that's mostly used to describe the risk of choosing, say, an actively-managed fund (or individual stocks) over a passive benchmark index investment more likely to match market returns." "You are conflating two different types of risk here.  First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the ""lowest risk, lowest returns"" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity.  Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution.  In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk.  From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else.  Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor.  You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero." I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own.  Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.