
By John De Goey, CFP, CIM
Special to Financial Independence Hub
One thing I do constantly is think about risk exposure and uncertainty. I try to actively think ahead on behalf of clients. What do they want and need? In doing that, I aim to be realistic in how I assess options, accepting that no one can be truly certain about anything.
In addition, I know that many investors seek relief from decision fatigue, volatility anxiety, and the burden of constant monitoring. I set out to address those challenges. Coming to a working framework has taken awhile.
In fact, it took until a few years ago for the regulatory framework in Canada to truly make sense. Until then, client suitability revolved around the concept of Strategic Asset Allocation. How much money was in cash, how much in bonds, and how much in stocks?
Taking no more Risk than is absolutely necessary
It has only been in the past few years that the way regulators think about portfolio construction has been brought in line with the way most people intuitively think about market instability and investment suitability. The goal is to get people the return they need while experiencing risk they can handle, but no more than absolutely necessary.
Until recently, portfolio managers were obligated to write investment policy statements that spell out a client’s strategic asset allocation based on discrete asset classes. Now, regulators assess suitability through the dual lens of risk tolerance in risk capacity. Tolerance is a matter of psychographic disposition. Capacity is a matter of investable asset levels and cash flows through income.
Portfolios need to be constructed to reflect the more conservative of those two tests. Accordingly, products that are rated as low-, medium-, or high-risk can be combined to create portfolios that correspond to a client’s risk appetite. Regulators have even added two intermediate risk profiles: low-to-medium and medium-to-high. Think of all products rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with low risk as a one and high risk as a 5. Investors can mix and match based on risk/return characteristics rather than clumsy asset class depictions.
Using 2022 as a case study, we can all see how this more contemporary approach is of great value to retail investors. Under the old model, a traditional balanced portfolio (60% stocks; 40% bonds) would have been forced to lose money when considering rate hikes that everyone knew were on the horizon. Being forced to have a 40% allocation to bonds in what was almost certain to be a short-term bond bear market is simply inconsistent with the principle of responsible risk management. The system was failing people, but mercifully, those days are over. Continue Reading…











