Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 589

Are mega super funds’ returns set to fall?

Our superannuation system receives almost universal praise, and rightly so. It’s served us well.

Yet, growing pains within the system are becoming apparent. For instance, there’s been rising pressure on funds to better meet the retirement needs of Australians.

I’m going to suggest that pressure may come from another source in the not-to-distant future: from mega super funds struggling to outperform their benchmarks.

Why do I say this? Because the mega funds are becoming so big that their size will almost inevitably impact their performance.

If I’m right, it’ll make it even more important to find the right fund for you.

Supersize me

A recent Morningstar report highlighted the successes of our superannuation system. Sector assets have soared from $150 billion in 1992 to more than $4 trillion today, and some forecast that number to rise to $9 trillion by 2040. The super sector is among the five largest pension pools in the world. That’s quite the feat given Australia’s population is outside the top 50 countries globally.

Super assets dwarf those of almost any sector in Australia, barring residential property. They’re 40% larger that Australia’s GDP. And they account for about 80% of local managed fund assets.

There are more than 60 licensees with a combined $2.7 trillion in assets—around 70% of sector assets— managing the super of over 90% of the population with superannuation balances.

The rise of mega funds

Normally, with the growth in assets that super has seen, you’d expect more competition and a greater number of players entering the sector. But that hasn’t been the case.

In fact, the number of APRA-regulated funds has fallen by 93% over the past 20 years. Consequently, the average fund size has rocketed from $250 million in 2004 to $19 billion now.

APRA has encouraged consolidation in the sector. It’s labelled funds with less than $30 billion in assets as “uncompetitive’.

That’s led to a spate of mergers, both large and small. The larger ones include First State Super and VicSuper forming Aware Super in 2020, and Sunsuper and QSuper teaming up to create the Australian Retirement Trust in 2022.

And it’s led to the rise of five so-called mega funds: Australian Super, ART, Aware Super, UniSuper, and Hostplus. Three others, in HESTA, Rest, and Cbus may join this club soon.

These eight funds control more than 50% of super assets. The largest of them, AustralianSuper and ART, hold about 25% of the sector’s assets.

Benefits of scale

As Geoff Warren and Scott Lawrence have pointed out in a previous Firstlinks article, size brings two key advantages. First, it lowers the cost per member, aka economics of scale. Mega funds can reduce costs by managing assets in-house, negotiating lower fees for external investment managers for larger mandates, and by spreading administration costs over a larger customer base.

Morningstar says that the percentage of fees paid (incorporating administrative, investment, and insurance costs) across the industry has fallen by more than 20 basis points, from 0.59% to 0.37%, since 2015.

The second advantage of size is on the investment side. Scale allows mega funds to invest in larger assets that smaller funds can’t touch. The funds have been investors in infrastructure projects, for instance. And they’ve also ramped up investments in other private assets over the past decade.

Size limitations

Size also brings disadvantages. It inevitably makes the funds more complex and bureaucratic. We’re already seeing some evidence of this with their attempts to cater to the growing retirement needs of their members.

The second disadvantage is that size limits where mega funds can invest. Consider that AustralianSuper is aiming to increase assets from $341 billion to $500 billion by 2028. Investing that amount of money on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis will be challenging to say the least.

The size factor may partly explain why the funds have moved so aggressively into international and private assets. A number of the funds have said that the moves are due to these assets offering more opportunities and greater returns. However, I think there’s also been an element of ‘force’ at play. Australian assets, including equities, have become too small for many of these funds and that’s forced them to look elsewhere for returns.

Studies show size reduces returns

The investment disadvantages of size haven’t received the attention they should. That’s largely explained by the impressive historical performance of the super funds.

I suggest that outperformance from the mega funds will become more difficult going forwards.

Why do I say this? First, because numerous academic studies have concluded that size impacts the performance of funds.

A 2015 paper by Lubos Pastor and colleagues for the Journal of Financial Economics found that as the size of the active mutual fund industry increases, a fund’s ability to outperform passive benchmarks decreases.

A 2018 study by Ping McLemore detailed how fund mergers resulted in deteriorating performance of the acquiring funds, and liquidity played an important role in the negative relationship between size and performance.

A 2020 paper by Pastor and colleagues studied tradeoffs among active managers and found “diseconomies of scale” among these managers.

There is other evidence of scale impacting performance. Look no further than one of the world’s greatest ever investors, Warren Buffett. His company, Berkshire Hathaway has returned 19.8% since 1965, compared to the 10.2% of the S&P 500. That outperformance of almost 10% is superb, yet deceptive.

As Ashley Owen has pointed out, most of the outperformance came from 1965-1990, and it’s been downhill since. Berkshire outperformed the index by 27% per annum (p.a.) in the 1960s, 16% p.a. in the 1970s, and 21% p.a. in the 1980s. However, it has only performed roughly in line with the index since 2002.

What explains the steep fall in Buffett’s outperformance? It’s likely to be less about skill and more about size. Consider that Buffett is currently sitting on a cash pile of about US$325 billion, which is larger than the market capitalisations of 477 of the 500 companies in the S&P 500. He’s having a harder and harder time investing the enormous cash that Berkshire is generating.

Pick your fund wisely

This is not to say that all mega funds will suffer. The main point is that the funds have enjoyed the fruits of scale up to now, as have their members. Yet, the downsides of scale are just starting to show, and are likely to become more apparent in future. Some funds will handle these challenges, while others won’t.

Monitoring fund performance, portfolio composition, and risks will become even more critical for superannuants.

 

James Gruber is Editor at Firstlinks.

 

16 Comments
Jenny Lee CFA
December 08, 2024

Its interesting to see most people celebrate the low fees of Industry funds/pooled super funds compared to SuperWrap funds which are more expensive. When you use the unit pricing provided by industry funds, you can easily see people are worse off in industry funds, as they have to sell inventment units to fund pension payments (in rising, flat, and drawdowns). Meaning you have less investment units each year. Wrap accounts can have distributions paid to the cash acount, meaning you don't have to sell investments in a down market. This feature alone is worth the higher fees of a Wrap account and an advisor - prolonging capital in retirement. Do the back test yourself using the published unit prices...

VIC Victor
December 08, 2024

Jenny, you seem to be running your scenario on larger balances. You can always just have a 2 years allocation to a cash option to managed the draw down phase, whilst receiving most of your income needs via the Age Pension. Will save lower balanced members materially versus over engineered Wraps that are for advisers to impress their paying clients with larger balances.

Jenny Lee CFA
December 09, 2024

What happes if the drawdown or sideways market last longer than 2 years (i.e. GFC)? You would still be selling investments units, depleting the longevity of capital. Not wise advice.

Vic Victor
December 09, 2024

You top up cash bucket via rebalance (auto or as required). Most funds offer this functionality. But more fundamentally it's not really required (see below).

If you run your model on members with balances under $500k that currently pay 50bps they will not benefit from the additional layer of wrap fees. This is because +60% of their income requirements actually come from Age Pension entitlements so they set min draw downs intentionally. This cohort is the majority and likely to remain so even post RIC.

VIc Victor
December 09, 2024

And to close out discussion, the way wraps separately treat dividends and distributions via MIS structure should make limited difference given they will also be incorporated into a rolled up unit price. The unit price will therefore be higher as a result of such income received and so fewer units will be cancelled as result of draw down.

The key is not paying higher fees unnecessarily given alpha is too hard to come by and ensuring the draw down rates are sustainable.

Claude Walker
December 08, 2024

Great article. Such a simple point, extremely likely to be accurate, very relevant to many people.

And yet so few people realise.

I would go a step further and say that the best alignment you can have with a fund manager is when the manager owns the business, or at least a substantial portion, and also invests virtually all their liquid assets in the fund.

While we can't control outcomes we can choose things like size of the fund and level of alignment between the fund manager and investors.

Geoff Warren
December 06, 2024

Thanks James for the reference to my earlier article with Scott Lawrence! Just one point to extend on your (very good) article. The evidence for size becoming a problem for investment performance you have quoted arise from listed markets, specifically equities. While this is true, the evidence in the pension world is more mixed. This paper for instance finds evidence for economies of scale in global pension funds (the abstract tells the story): https://www.icpmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Scale-Economies-Bargaining-Power-and-Investment-Performance-Evidence-from-Pension-Plans.pdf.

There is undoubtedly some size at which investment performance turns down for super funds, but it is far from clear that Australian super funds are yet at this point. But there is a risk that some funds “stuff up” the inevitable transition towards more big ticket private asset classes and overseas investments. Hopefully not!

James Gruber
December 06, 2024

Hi Geoff,

Good points, thanks.

I agree that it isn't clear that super funds are at that point.

As for the evidence, yes, most of the research focuses on listed assets.

Note though that the likes of Berkshire can invest in private assets and has repeatedly does so, and it hasn't helped with performance over the past two decades - and I think he's an ok investor!

It's certainly not like-for-like comparing to pension funds, so it will be interesting how it plays out.

Best,
James

Steve
December 06, 2024

"Monitoring fund performance, portfolio composition, and risks will become even more critical for superannuants". I suspect less than 1% of superannuants would do any of these things. A large chunk of the population only have super because they have to and don't take any interest in it until they start thinking about retirement.

Davidy
December 06, 2024

With these mega funds now bigger than some of our banks, are we confident they have the systems and controls to start paying out the millions in pensions ?

Having watched the CBUS lack of control over death/disability payments, I am glad my funds are in a SMSF that I can track and manage.

David
December 06, 2024

We are in interesting times to see if these large funds can support the growing number of retired members as this grows in the coming years. Governance is going to be a key factor. I am with Hostplus and I was flabbergasted to find out that they sponsored the AFL - this is members money and I do not see where they should be sponsoring sport or other community activities to build their brand or other marketing activities - they dont need to be promoting themselves as do for profit companies - they need to provide for their members alone.

Dauf
December 06, 2024

I’m sure the bosses get paid more for the increase in any FUM…the only reason i could ever see for wasting money advertising and sponsoring sports. Just look after the members!

Geoff D
December 06, 2024

I agree 100% with you David. It annoys me when I see TV commercials promoting industry funds. They shouldn't be promoting anything! Same with contributions to unions and the possible flow-on political donations. Superannuation funds are for the members and, in the case of industry funds, not all fund members are union members. Nowhere near it. Certainly can't do that sort of thing with an SMSF!

Joe
December 06, 2024

I'd suspect that lowering costs and increasing returns consistently would be the best advertising possible.

Neil
December 05, 2024

I suspect that Buffet, as a value investor, has done very well merely matching the index over the last 20 years given momentum / growth / tech investing has been the winning formula, especially over the last decade.

There is a possibility that Buffet's cool $325B sitting in cash, earning say 3-4%, will outperform the index if the market gives away (or "draws down", which seems to be the contemporary way of saying losing your money) 10-20% over the next few years.

David MC
December 09, 2024

Why Buffet would spend the few years he has left earning money he will never spend, not even a tiny fraction of it, baffles me. Even if he embarked on major charity donations he would not make a dent!

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Addressing the gender super gap

How much do you need to retire comfortably?

Super performance based on fund size, risk and unlisted assets

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Avoiding wealth transfer pitfalls

Australia is in the early throes of an intergenerational wealth transfer worth an estimated $3.5 trillion. Here's a case study highlighting some of the challenges with transferring wealth between generations.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

Australia’s shameful super gap

ASFA provides a key guide for how much you will need to live on in retirement. Unfortunately it has many deficiencies, and the averages don't tell the full story of the growing gender superannuation gap.

Looking beyond banks for dividend income

The Big Four banks have had an extraordinary run and it’s left income investors with a conundrum: to stick with them even though they now offer relatively low dividend yields and limited growth prospects or to look elsewhere.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

Investment strategies

Time to announce the X-factor for 2024

What is the X-factor - the largely unexpected influence that wasn’t thought about when the year began but came from left field to have powerful effects on investment returns - for 2024? It's time to select the winner.

Shares

Australian shares struggle as 2020s reach halfway point

It’s halfway through the 2020s decade and time to get a scorecheck on the Australian stock market. The picture isn't pretty as Aussie shares are having a below-average decade so far, though history shows that all is not lost.

Shares

Is FOMO overruling investment basics?

Four years ago, we introduced our 'bubbles' chart to show how the market had become concentrated in one type of stock and one view of the future. This looks at what, if anything, has changed, and what it means for investors.

Shares

Is Medibank Private a bargain?

Regulatory tensions have weighed on Medibank's share price though it's unlikely that the government will step in and prop up private hospitals. This creates an opportunity to invest in Australia’s largest health insurer.

Shares

Negative correlations, positive allocations

A nascent theme today is that the inverse correlation between bonds and stocks has returned as inflation and economic growth moderate. This broadens the potential for risk-adjusted returns in multi-asset portfolios.

Retirement

The secret to a good retirement

An Australian anthropologist studying Japanese seniors has come to a counter-intuitive conclusion to what makes for a great retirement: she suggests the seeds may be found in how we approach our working years.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.