Have you heard this recently? "I'm a conservative income investor and I need to earn more than the 5 per cent on offer in cash accounts and term deposits. I want a safe 7 per cent to 8 per cent, like that available in the Company X preference share offer being marketed now."
There's a huge contradiction in this investor's statement. An opportunity has nothing to do with "need". Something is an opportunity whether you "need" one or not.
Perhaps there's no longer such a thing as a "safe 7 per cent to 8 per cent". And, anyway, why should your needs have anything to do with a critical analysis of risk?
Nevertheless, there are plenty of commentators encouraging riskier behaviour to secure higher rates from income security offers from Origin, AGL, Tabcorp, Caltex and Colonial, for example, over term deposits or cash accounts.
If they've hit your mailbox, you're being targeted as in the "need" category. For conservative investors, it's a big mistake to embrace the extra yield without knowing the risks. As Raymond DeVoe jnr warned, "more money has been lost reaching for yield than at the point of a gun".
Alluring promises
For sums less than $250,000, cash accounts and term deposits are government guaranteed. Buying subordinated corporate debt instead, or hybrids, which rank just ahead of ordinary equity in a corporate collapse is reaching for yield.
Many of these "income securities" are closer to junk bonds than cash accounts.
Ordinary equities offer the potential for high returns, with risks that we're all acquainted with volatility, the chance of bankruptcy, unknown dividend flows, management incompetence and so on. These risks are mostly visible, which is why the stockmarket doesn't much appeal to our conservative income investor.
In contrast, the hybrid market holds an alluring promise not offered by equity markets: The potential for returns higher than bank interest rates, with little visible risk over that of bank deposits. It's a finance marketers dream: The upside of stocks and the protection of a term-deposit-like security. No wonder the high headline rate attracts our conservative income investor.
It's a mirage, of course. There is no such thing as a higher return without higher risk. Here are the pitfalls:
Potential non-payment of (non-cumulative) distributions
The risk of falling interest rates and yields
Term asymmetry. The current offers from APA Group and Crown, for example, will last from 6 years to 60 years, depending on what suits the borrower, not what suits you
The potential for capital loss in the event of bankruptcy or an Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority intervention
If the issuer runs into financial strife, a potential conversion to equity at exactly the wrong time.
The more obvious equity risks have been removed but the remaining ones are terrifying.
Risk curve
Think of buying income securities, especially lower-ranking ones, as the equivalent of holding a term deposit while selling earthquake insurance on the side.
You'll collect an extra per cent or two in premiums (extra interest) each year in exchange for the possibility of having your investment annihilated if disaster strikes.
If you cannot afford any losses in your portfolio, then most hybrids probably will not suit you.
Better to favour term deposits and cash accounts, lower rates notwithstanding. A bank-issued bond (such as CommBank Retail Bonds) might make sense when pricing is favourable.
A sensible reaction to lower interest rates is to stay put in safe assets and, as an unfortunate side effect, collect less interest than you once did. If it didn't make sense to sell earthquake insurance when interest rates were higher, does it make sense to sell it now?
If you think 4 per cent to 5 per cent on term deposits is low, imagine how you'll feel if one or more of your income securities goes belly up. Further up the risk curve, though, investors are abandoning "risky" equities altogether, delivering some attractive prices in selected stocks.
On a risk/reward basis, it might make more sense for conservative investors to put, say, 20 per cent of their wealth into underpriced ordinary equities than put half their wealth on the line in "lower risk" hybrids that aren't underpriced.
Australian income investors are over-sensitive to the visible risks in equity investing while unwittingly exposing themselves to risks in income securities, all in the name of being "conservative". They should be sleeping less soundly than they are.
Gareth Brown is an analyst at Intelligent Investor, intelligent investor.com.au. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What are hybrids and why are they marketed as a 'safe' income option for conservative investors?
Hybrids (subordinated corporate debt) are marketed as offering stock-like upside with term-deposit-like protection — higher income than bank interest with little visible risk. The article warns this is a mirage: hybrids actually sit just ahead of ordinary equity in a collapse, carry complex risks (non-cumulative payments, conversion features, capital loss) and can behave more like risky debt than a safe cash account.
Are cash accounts and term deposits government guaranteed?
Yes — for sums less than $250,000, cash accounts and term deposits benefit from a government guarantee, which is a key protection that many hybrids and subordinated debt instruments do not provide.
What are the main risks of buying income securities, hybrids or subordinated corporate debt?
Key risks highlighted in the article include potential non-payment of non-cumulative distributions, falling interest rates and yield risk, extreme term asymmetry (some offers run many years), capital loss if the issuer fails or if regulators like the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority intervene, and forced conversion to equity at an inopportune time.
Is it wise for conservative investors to 'reach for yield' and switch from term deposits to income securities?
The article cautions against reaching for yield if you can’t afford losses. For truly conservative investors, embracing extra yield from lower-ranking income securities without understanding the risks is a big mistake — better to stick with term deposits or cash accounts despite lower rates.
What does 'term asymmetry' mean and how can it affect hybrid investors?
Term asymmetry means the debt’s tenor is set to suit the borrower, not the investor. The article uses APA Group and Crown offers as examples that can last from about 6 years to 60 years — locking investors into long, issuer-friendly terms that may not match their needs.
Could ordinary equities sometimes be a better risk/reward choice than hybrids for conservative investors?
The article suggests that on a risk/reward basis it may make sense for conservative investors to allocate a modest portion (for example, 20%) to underpriced ordinary equities rather than placing a large share of wealth into lower‑risk hybrids that aren’t underpriced. Equities carry visible risks, but they may offer better value in some market conditions.
Are many income securities closer to junk bonds than to bank deposits?
Yes. The article warns that many marketed 'income securities' resemble junk bonds more than safe cash accounts — offering higher headline yields but substantially higher default and capital‑loss risk.
What cautious strategies should income investors follow right now according to the article?
Suggested strategies include favouring government‑guaranteed cash accounts and term deposits if you can’t tolerate losses, accepting lower interest rather than taking hidden credit risk, considering bank‑issued bonds (like CommBank retail bonds) only when pricing is favourable, and avoiding large allocations to lower‑ranking hybrids unless you understand and can bear the risks.