Mercer's David Scobie says while for many investors cash has still not ascended the throne, for some it can play a useful positioning role in an investment portfolio

Mercer's David Scobie says while for many investors cash has still not ascended the throne, for some it can play a useful positioning role in an investment portfolio

By David Scobie*

“We always keep enough cash around, so I feel very comfortable and don’t worry about sleeping at night. But it’s not because I like cash as an investment. Cash is a bad investment over time. But you always want to have enough so that nobody else can determine your future.”  -  Warren Buffet.

As the above quote indicates, the primary role of cash is to serve as a valuable pool of liquidity, available to meet investors’ short-term liabilities and to protect investors from falling into the trap of forced asset selling to cover their outgoings. However, in the current market environment, investors with high risk aversion may have other reasons to hold cash. 2018 reminded us of the real risk that global bonds and equities may produce negative returns in the same period, with cash outperforming both. With historically low bond yields following a decade of loose monetary policy in developed markets, the relative attractiveness of bonds becomes more open to question and cash could offer tactical advantages in an investor’s toolkit.

“Cash” in this article refers to professionally-managed funds offered by investment managers. These funds typically hold very-short-dated fixed income instruments such as treasury bills, bank floating rate notes and commercial paper.  Such money market investments are frequently regarded as being as safe as (or safer than) holding deposits in a bank, while providing a marginally higher yield.

Cash primarily provides liquidity

How much money or how many outgoings an investor requires from a portfolio at any one time can be described as the liquidity need. The level of liquidity required, and where it is sourced from, can be informed via a liquidity budgeting exercise which stress-tests an investor’s ability to cope under different (including highly challenging) environments. Cash is clearly not the only liquid asset, and the process tests the liquidity across the asset base.  However, cash is somewhat unique in being both highly liquid and exhibiting almost no downside risk.

It’s worth noting that what cash consists of can be a broad universe. An investor in a cash fund needs it to be true to its label, and this will depend on the fund’s underlying construction. Most famously, in the global financial crisis (GFC), the largest US cash fund, the Reserve Fund, “broke the buck” (i.e. its net asset value fell below $1) due to a significant holding of now-defaulted Lehman Brothers’ notes. In this exceptional environment, cash funds (as investors’ most liquid asset) faced significant redemption demands and, as a result, some mark-to-market losses. This result was akin to a run on a bank, with investors withdrawing money for fear their cash holding was not truly low default risk “cash.”

In the years following, regulation in some countries limited the underlying holdings that a cash fund can hold, thereby helping ensure cash is truly vanilla in nature.  However, investors should be aware of the underlying securities of cash funds and check that these are in line with their investment objectives and reasoning for holding a cash investment.

Liquidity is often the most overlooked risk in asset allocation. It provides oxygen to markets and seems ubiquitous when confidence is high, but can disappear in a flash when most needed. 

Cash is not a long-term investment

While how much liquidity is required is a strategic choice, how much liquidity is desired (in excess of that) is a function of a shorter-term or dynamic asset allocation decision process. This will reflect two things: (1) the strength of an investor’s views in relation to the balance of risks and opportunities in investment markets at any one time, and as importantly (2) the robustness of an investor’s decision-making process so as to effectively implement a dynamic approach over time. The latter, in particular, is easier said than done.  Opportunistic investors tend to have more cash at hand so they can readily capitalise on prospective “big wins” as they emerge. Investors who are more long-term strategic in their approach do not hold large pools of cash because of its limited return potential. In the context of long-term investing, a holding in cash is often seen as “underinvested.”

Figure 1 clearly highlights the opportunity cost of investing in cash. It also shows the 10 years since the GFC when cash returns were very poor relative to riskier assets, especially equities, due to low to zero official interest rates and quantitative easing (QE).

Rates during this period challenged the conventional wisdom that the cash rate should be at least equal to the rate of inflation or higher.  The median US real interest rate for the period since 1972 has been around 1% per annum, but for much of the post-GFC period real interest rates have been negative in most developed countries, as is the case in New Zealand now. 

Winning by not losing

Although it is difficult to maintain a long-term return-based rationale for holding cash, a stronger case could be made for including cash in more conservative portfolios to help with risk reduction. Total multi-asset portfolio risk can be reduced in one of three ways:

  1. Increase exposure to negatively correlated assets (increase diversification and downside risk characteristics)
  2. Increase exposure to low positively correlated assets (increase diversification and therefore risk-adjusted return)
  3. Reduce exposure to higher risk assets in favour of lower-risk assets (reduce average risk per dollar invested).

Historically, government bonds have met the first criterion. This is why bonds have typically been the “40” in a traditional “60/40” portfolio. Cash really meets only the third criterion and is why long-term strategic allocations have preferred longer-term bonds for risk reduction. However, the current low level of bond yields serves to reduce the relative attractiveness of bonds.

Over a quarter of global investment grade bonds, worth US$14 trillion, are now yielding below zero.  

Mercer’s unconstrained balanced reference portfolio includes allocations to cash as well as government bonds to manage downside risk. This is on the grounds that, while government bonds may still provide some negative correlation benefit in a severe equity market setback, there are certain conditions - captured in our stress tests - that could see both bonds and equities fall together.

Such conditions were seen in 2018 – generally a poor year for investors – in which more asset classes had negative returns than in 2008. Investors were reminded that equities are indeed volatile, and that in environments where markets become concerned about inflation and interest rate risk, both equities and bonds can produce weak returns at the same time. Cash emerged as a winner, simply by not losing.

In the current environment, yields on short-term debt instruments are so low that, to boost returns, investors are tempted to take on more risk via longer duration or more credit. However, there is a very low yield premium for extending out the yield curve and, in the process, accepting higher sensitivity to interest rate movements.

Conclusion

Over the 10 years that have passed since the GFC, low inflation expectations and historic experiments in monetary policy have underpinned a broad bull market in investment assets. Investors with a strategic allocation to cash would have seen a significant return drag in their portfolio compared to traditional stocks and bonds.

However, what the next 10 years hold may differ greatly. 2018 was a good example of a market that is wary of central banks reducing the support they have offered post-GFC. The Federal Reserve, now back in easing mode, has proven responsive to the emerging economic outlook. A scenario of tight labour markets feeding through to inflation would likely see the Fed shift again from support to constraint. In such an environment, weak or negative returns from both bond and equity assets could be a realistic outcome.

Even in the absence of a tightening monetary policy environment, the outlook for global growth and trade remains uncertain. Investors who are tactically-inclined, and have the governance capability in place, could be wise to keep some “dry powder” in their portfolio on top of immediate liquidity needs, ready to deploy in the case of significant market turmoil. Hence, while for many investors cash has still not ascended the throne, for some it can play a useful positioning role in a portfolio.


*David Scobie is head of Consulting (NZ) at Mercer Investments. This article does not contain investment advice relating to your particular circumstances. No investment decision should be made based on this information without first obtaining appropriate professional advice and considering your circumstances.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

26 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

I hold only enough cash to service my mortgage, rates and insurance for 3 months, the rest of my cash is in a junior gold mining company ASX: SLR and physical Gold and Silver. Will hold it there for the next 3 months then see what happens, but can always sell the shares anytime if need be. I would definately relate to the long term strategic approach as opposed to the opportunistic investor.

You are quite a unique investor. Just my opinion, but physical gold / silver is not really a proxy for cash. You'd be better off in GOLD and EPTMAG (been in both since 2005 and 2018 respectively). Physical holdings are good but they're not liquid, particularly in a country like NZ.

Silver Lake is one to watch particularly with the Japanese association. But once again, this is speculation. Not proxy for cash.

Perth Mint gold traded on the ASX as PMGOLD but the management fee is higher than their US ETF AAAU. I do the ASX as I spend a bit of time in Australia

I do the ASX as I spend a bit of time in Australia

You don't need to be in Australia. I have traded in Australia since 2005 first under ETtrade and now under ANZ (who took over ETrade_.

I am not a tax resident of either Australia or New Zealand, just holiday homes. My country of tax residency does not share the same relationship as NZ and Aust do or have a Common Reporting Standard agreement “yet”

I understand, yes. Thank you for the feedback.
With what's been happening lately everything (property, even cash itself) appears to be going into price discovery mode. I've found from the beginning of the year, these picks have been slow and surely. Yes, when purchasing the physical precious metal there's that mark up at the beginning, that means you're commited for a few weeks before it's recovered! At this rate it is only a few weeks though then it's been as happy as a pony ride as it looks with GOLD and ETPMAG too. All the best.

I agree. Physical gold needs a good long-term strategy, which is why I said it's not a proxy for cash savings. IMO. And yes, gold has been very interesting. I own GDX and OCG. I track SLR. Took a sizeable hit today so I might buy.

This is a good article.
Personally I am starting to like the idea of having a good thick wad of paper cash held in a safe. As a response to the govt getting closer and closer to bringing in negative retail bank interest rates.

Pray they don't demonetise, as India did a while ago.

Nothing is 100% safe. I had a few thousand dollars in a safe, then had a house fire. Luckily it didn't make it to the safe. I don't think TD's will turn negative and if they do people with large amounts invested will be giving their banks notice and arriving with a large suitcase to withdraw the lot. The consequences of what will essentially be a run on the banks will cause massive problems, the reserve bank would be stupid to even consider trying to push the banks into negative rates.

I have RCDs on the electrics, don't smoke, don't have electric blankets....
But as the interest rate gets close to zero, even when slightly positive, with the threat of bank failure, OBR etc not having it in the bank starts to look very attractive.

In a deflationary economic environment Cash is King, even with negative interest rates.

Debt on the other hand, will also become more valuable and can crush the over-leveraged.

During the next credit crisis, credit will become so scarce that interest rates have to go back up.

Pay off your debts including mortgage NOW, while you still can.

Paying off your debts ASAP has always been good advice, problem is people are not going to see it like that when the rates are this low. My mortgage was 8.6% several years ago and it only made sense to smash it. The problem is if punters see house prices rising agin it only makes sense to get into more debt with someone else's "Free" money.....

Interest rates up? Dont think so.
and Debt / Credit / Cash .... whats the difference? ... Its all becoming worthless
Everything will be thrown at the next crisis ( yes free Debt / credit / cash) in order to try and keep some sort of supply chains going

Credit will dry up like a mud-pool in February.

And yes, its interest rates will go up.

Gold is money (as Is silver), an ounce of god is an ounce of gold, it’s also divisible. It’s not that the price of gold is going up, but rather the dollar is going down. Politicians and economists would rather have us believe it’s a commodity which of course is incorrect. It’s insurance.

OK, you must mean "all fiat currencies are going down" because gold has appreciated in price against JPY and CHF, both of which have the strongest correlation with risk off and the gold price.

Correct. All fiat currencies are backed by the US dollar which is backed by nothing. Until Nixon removed the US dollar from the gold standard in 1971 which at the time was $35(US) an ounce, yet remains the worlds reserve currency - ever noticed the slight smug look on Franklins face on a $100 greenback along with the words ‘In god we trust’.

The US Dollar is backed by the US Army.

(wrong thread)

Buffett,as he often is, is quite right. Many here are averse to cash,but not me. I now hold some 15% of my total investment portfolio in very short term PIE TDs purely for liquidity. Most of my portfolio is in the stockmarket and as it has continued rising,I have been happy to take profits and wait for the inevitable downturn.

When it comes, I can sit it out and gradually reduce cash to some 5%. At 74, I admit that I am becoming more risk averse.

Yes linklater01 I think its related to age, your in a different position in later life or at least you should be if you have played your cards right. You no longer need to take risks or get greedy for higher returns. Even worse than you with currently 100% of mine in TD's of generally 6 to 9 months. Has been a great way to sleep at night but just recently I'm getting a little nervous. Just waiting for the housing market to stall but if it doesn't this side of Christmas I don't think it ever will.

I cannot believe that analysis is STILL pulling the old chestnut of looking VERY selectively at 1990 - 2019 stock market returns. Yes I know it includes 2007-9 but come on, really.

This is biased. 2019, for a start, is a high. Also, what is return since 1965? Or 1920?
Not quite so good, my friend, especially after inflation.
DJIA returned NIL from 1929-54 for instance.
Return was also pathetic if not negative, from 1971-82.
So, cough up, what was the after inflation return on equity from 1918 - 2018?
From last time I was reading something honest, it is about 2.5% or less.
I am not claiming cash is any better, or safer

Hello friends: here is DJIA 100 year chart.
1966 - 95: took 29 years to get back to same level.
1929 - 57: ditto.

Not good is it? yes, it has risen wonderful marvellous since 1990. Bit selective though eh?
https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

sorry, cannot resist: look at the chart I posted for DJIA 100 years.
Return 1966 (peak) to 1982? About - 75%.
THAT is not being cited I notice

"Over the 10 years that have passed since the GFC, low inflation expectations and historic experiments in monetary policy have underpinned a broad bull market in investment assets. Investors with a strategic allocation to cash would have seen a significant return drag in their portfolio compared to traditional stocks and bonds".

What does this mean ?