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.
"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." To what end would you want to break the law? Why would you think it is beneficial to you in any way? The reason for these limitations is to protect people who have no financial reserves and are not sophisticated investors from making dangerous and risky investments with the little money they have to invest. You need to remember that there's no guarantee of principal with these loans and the rate of default is pretty high. From my own personal experience with Lending Club (and I've only invested in A and some B-rated loans) - rate of default is about 10%. This may be a nice exercise in microlending - but if you want to put all your savings into this, you're taking a huge risk. Risk which is completely unjustified since not only the returns are pretty low (again - from my aforementioned experience: <6% APR, you take higher rate loans - you get higher rate of defaults), but they're also taxed as ordinary gains. Why would you not, instead, invest in a more conservative bond or bond/stock mix fund which will pay you dividends that will get preferential tax treatment and appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax? No reason. And the limitation on who can invest in Lending Club is there for exactly this purpose - to weed out people like you who have no idea of what they're doing. This decision depends upon a few things. I will list a couple:- 1.) What is your perception about financial markets in your time span of investments? 2.) What kind of returns are you expecting? 3.) How much liquidity do you have to take care of your daily/monthly expenses? 1.)If your perception about financial markets is weak for the near future, do not invest all your money in a mutual fund at 1 time. Because, if the market falls drastically, chances are that your fund will also lose a lot of money and the NAV will go down. On the other hand, if you think it is strong, go ahead and invest all at one time. 2.) If you are expecting very high returns in a short time frame, then SIP might not be a very good option as you are only investing a portion of your money. So, if the market goes higher, then you will make money only on what you have invested till date and also buy into the fund in the upcoming month at a higher rate( So you will get less units).  3.) If you put all your money into a mutual fund, will you have enough money to take care of your daily needs and emergencies? The worst thing about an investment is putting in all what you have and then being forced to sell in a bear market at a lower rate because you really require the money. Other option is taking a personal loan(15-16%) and taking care of your daily needs, but that would not make sense either as the average return that you can expect from a mutual fund in India is 12-13%. To summarize:- 1.) If you have money to spare and think the market is going to go higher, a mutual fund is a better option. 2.) If you have the money to spare and think that the market is going to fall, DON'T DO ANYTHING!.(It is always better to be even than lose). 3.) If you don't have the money and don't know about markets, but want to be part of it, then you can invest in an SIP because the advantages of this are if the market goes high, you make money on what you've put it, and if the market falls, you get to buy more units of the fund for a cheaper price. Eventually, you can expect to make a return of 14-15% on these, but again, INVESTMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO MARKET RISK! Please watch the funds average return over the last 10 years and their portfolio holdings. All the best!:) PS:- I am assuming you are talking about equity funds. If you're under age 55 and in good health generally you cannot withdraw your funds from super and your super fund cannot provide you with any financial assistance eg lend you money. However, for a very small percentage of people with unrestricted non preserved superannuation components ( check your statement most people's superannuation is 'preserved'which means they cannot access it until they meet a 'condition of release')they may withdraw their super benefits upto the unrestricted non preserved amount. For healthy (& able) persons  aged 55 and over they may access their super under the following conditions: I can understand your frustration of having your money compulsory tied up in superannuation especially given the poor investment returns of the past 5 years. However, superannuation may be more flexible than you realize, I am an adviser at Grant Thornton and I am constantly telling clients that superannuation is not an invest but it the most tax effective long term savings vehicle available to Australians for their investment savings eg max 15% tax on income and capital gains if held for a year are taxed at 10%.  If you're not happy with your investment returns you may like to seek some advice or,set up your own super fund - a self managed super fund where you can invest a wide variety of assets; shares, managed funds,cash, term deposits, property( your super fund can even borrow to help acquire the property) I hope this helps The safest place to put money is a mixture of cash, local municipal bond funds with average durations under two years and US Treasury bond funds with short durations.  Examples of good short term US municipal funds: I'm not an active investor in Australian securities, so I won't recommend anything specific. Because rates are so low right now, you want a short duration (ie. funds where the average bond matures in < 2 years) fund to protect against increased rates. The problem with safety is that you won't make any money. If your goal to grow the value of your investment while minimizing risk, you need to look at equities. The portfolios posted by justkt are a great place to start. The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%.  The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%.  Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options.  You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return.  If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk.  In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths. I agree that high volatility just means the underlying stock price fluctuates more, and it does not imply if the stock is going up or down. But a high volatility in the price of an underlying also means that there is a higher chance that the underlying price could reach extreme prices (albeit in either direction). However, if you purchased a call option then if the underlying price reached an extremely high value, then you will be richly rewarded. But if the underlying price reached an extremely low value, you won't lose any more than the initial premium that you paid. There is no additional risk on your side, it's capped to the premium that you paid for the call option. It's this asymmetric outcome (Heads - I win, Tails - I don't lose) combined with high volatility that means that call options will increase in value when the underlying price becomes more volatile. If the optionality wasn't there then the price wouldn't be related to the volatility of the underlying. But that would be called a Future or a Forward :-) Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously.  Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice.  Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio.  If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.