Fehlallokation durch fehlende risikoadjustierte Benchmarks

Definition

Industry research and tools such as Rainmaker’s Super Benchmarking Report and wholesale investment market reports show that Australian investment and superannuation products are routinely assessed on quarterly performance, fees and risk metrics to support mandate and advice decisions.[3] Inadequate in‑house reporting systems in advice practices—using static spreadsheets or incomplete data—mean portfolios are often benchmarked against inappropriate indices (e.g., generic ASX 200 instead of risk‑matched or multi‑asset benchmarks) and without full fee and tax drag. Over time this leads to persistent selection of funds and models that lag suitable peer and index benchmarks by 50–100 bps p.a., a gap widely documented between top‑quartile and median funds in industry benchmark tables.[3] For an advice practice with AUD 1 billion FUM, a 0.5% annual performance drag equals AUD 5 million of client value erosion each year; for networks with AUD 5–10 billion FUM, the drag can exceed AUD 25–50 million. Because ASIC expects advisers to have a reasonable basis for advice and to consider alternatives, systematically flawed benchmarking also increases the probability of client complaints and remediation programs when under‑performance is later identified.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Investment advice firms in Australia 🇦🇺 managing around AUD 1–5 billion in client assets can easily misallocate 0.5–1.0% p.a. of returns through poor quarterly performance measurement and benchmarking, equating to AUD 5–50 million of client under‑performance annually. Automating data feeds, risk‑adjusted benchmarking and fee‑inclusive reporting largely eliminates this recurring loss and compliance exposure.

Affected Stakeholders

Financial advisers, Investment committees, Research analysts within advice licensees, Responsible Managers (AFSL), Compliance officers

Related Business Risks