Industry funds outperform retail counterparts

SuperRatings data shows that industry funds outperformed bank-owned super funds by more than two per cent over 10 years, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).

The monthly data provided by superannuation researcher SuperRatings shows that industry funds have outperformed retail funds in the "short, medium and long term", ISA said.

Over a rolling 10-year period industry super funds returned members 6.13 per cent, while retail funds returned 4.10 per cent.

On a shorter timeframe, industry funds outperformed bank-owned super funds by 2.11 per cent, 2.24 per cent and 1.96 per cent over one, three and five-year periods respectively.

ISA chief executive David Whiteley urged young workers to switch to a fund that delivers all profits to members.

"Over the long, medium and short term, independent research consistently reinforces that member's benefit from the strong 'all profit to members' philosophy that drives the industry super fund sector," Mr Whiteley said.

"Today's data further underlines the need to maintain the current default superannuation system, which ensures only high-performing super funds can be used as default funds by employers.

"This is an important protection for millions of Australians who rely on this system and don't actively make a choice of fund," he said.

Add comment

Security code


-1 #32 Informed 2016-01-20 15:28
Another update from Chant West with data for FY 2015 and not for profit funds have taken all the TOP 10 spots. The retail funds no where is sight. The not for profit funds continue to outperform retail funds as has been the case for a few years now. Guys time to act in the best interest of the client. Please do not go off on tangent and bag the author and David and simply accept the facts presented by independent entity Chant West.
0 #31 Funky goose 2016-01-19 12:51
The purpose of the responses Mr Duck was to highlight the misinformation re investment performance being presented by the industry fund movement as fact. Advice practises do not compete with industry funds ( that is a contradiction in terms ) and advice is regulated by a best interest duty.
+1 #30 The Duck 2016-01-13 09:54
And I thought that we were all trying to change our "industry" to a "profession" where we give good sound quality financial advice the people of Australia, not bag each other publically as to who is the better fund.

Come on guys, it is the job of the planner to ensure that whatever fund we choose for the client meets the best interest duty for the client at the time. No doubt we would all do our research to ensure that the client received the best advice / fund that they need.

grow up.
+1 #29 Wildcat 2016-01-12 16:46
Goose, that same client bought a BMW or a Merc and not a Hyundai which does the same job.

We live in a democratic state, not a communist one, much to some people's chagrin.
0 #28 goose shooter 2016-01-12 08:18
Think you will find the individual with an ongoing relationship has paid a heap of $$$ for ongoing reviews, invested in an underperforming fund and bought the adviser a new BMW....and a holiday home by the beach....and perhaps a boat. Turns out that book of clients the adviser BOUGHT was a great investment
+2 #27 Dave 2016-01-11 12:37
How about a survey that compares the total financial well-being of someone with an "outperforming" industry fund who gets NO financial advice to someone with an "underperformin g" retail fund who has an ongoing relationship with an adviser for 10 years...
THINK YOU WILL FIND that the advised person ends up well in front and no doubt is better protected too with appropriate estate planning and risk management strategies in place!
+4 #26 Jimmy Neutron 2016-01-11 10:08
And interesting Wildcat that Super Ratings only compare to 'retail' super funds that are now 'old school' legacy type products and not the type of super funds used by most advisers these days - ie: super wraps, MDA's, etc. But as you say, don't let the facts get in the way of a union sponsored spin doctor...
+2 #25 Wildcat 2016-01-07 13:44
Pavel, did you note 12 months ago some union funds were quoting 15 year returns as their 10 year numbers were lower.

But "don't let the facts" get in the way of a union sponsored spin doctor.
+2 #24 Concerned 2016-01-07 12:51
So in summary industry funds are better than everyone else by 2%pa but only if they are not high growth funds and only if you select time frames when commissions were included in retail fund unit prices. Can anyone explain how the cost of industry fund peak time TV advertising and sponsorship of football teams benefits existing members ? How are these costs incorporated into the performance? Can anyone explain why industry funds are allowed to continue misleading advertising in the compare the pair adds ? Or why there is no one in industry funds with sufficient moral fibre to stand up against these lies ?
0 #23 james 2016-01-07 12:38
NoneOfUrConcernQuoting NoneOfUrConcern:
Good question James. I have wondered that too. Some industry funds/profit to member funds cap these fees once account reaches a certain level but the majority of funds are uncapped.

I am yet to see a cap on any fund. I have seen tiering of fees for larger balances in some funds, but I have seen no capping of investment management fees anywhere.

If there are specific examples of capping, would be great if you could point them out.
0 #22 NoneOfUrConcern 2016-01-07 10:41
Good question James. I have wondered that too. Some industry funds/profit to member funds cap these fees once account reaches a certain level but the majority of funds are uncapped.
0 #21 james 2016-01-07 08:23
I'll expose my ignorance here I'm sure, but a simple question hope I can get an answer to.

If fee for service or flat fees are totally the solution, why do industry funds charge percentage based asset investment management fees?

(for that matter it is not just industry funds, but all funds, though it is industry funds who are strongly against percentage based adviser fees).

For investment management, why charge someone with $1 Mill 10 x more compared to someone with $100,000 for essentially the same service?
+1 #20 Reality 2016-01-06 15:34
Wow, I am genuinely amazing by how many people buy into the industry vs retail fund advertising.

Modern industry funds are basically the same cost and perform similarly. Nothing wrong with industry funds (outside their admin) but these performance comparisons are very misleading...

There is a reason they have been done for misleading advertising in the past and can no longer run the 'compare the pair' adds with figures.
0 #19 NoneOfUrConcern 2016-01-06 13:16
Doesn't this article reference 10 year returns most prominently? Come back in 7 years Champ! Lets see if BT is still there.
I did notice that BT features only in High Growth (91-100) and not in ANY other asset range. Don’t be so naïve as to think BT is (or retails funds are) the best fund(s) because you made number one in only one category. It is difficult to stay up there, don’t get too cosy. Also, I struggle to believe for a second that all of your clients are in the High Growth option. Get back to work Concerned and don’t be such a silly sausage!
0 #18 goose shooter 2016-01-06 12:28
Concerned, yes I am! In my experience over a number of years working in both the retail and industry fund sectors I have only come across a handful of investors that would actually be high risk investors. Highlighting a fund with such a high weighting to international equities is irrelevant.
Both the crediting rate and unit pricing approaches are means to the same end. The ultimate test is whether members' interest are properly served and that is the end goal. Both methods of calculating a members interest are externally audited.
As pointed out by 'informed' the retail model was set up to provide shareholders with profits vs the Industry sector to benefit and return profits to members. When there is such a contrast in business models it is the member who ultimately losers out and pays for it.
+1 #17 Concerned 2016-01-06 11:27
Sour grapes I would be happy to disclose the fund but I have no interest in trying to educate you on the limitations of comparing crediting rates,smoothed returns and unit pricing. My purpose of communicating via this website is to dispel your lies to others.
Recommend that you refer to the best performing high growth fund in the Super Ratings website. It is a retail fund and achieved 18.19% over the last 3 years which is 3.68% pa better than the nearest industry fund.
-1 #16 Pavel 2016-01-06 11:04
Interesting debate. But as usual, the retail fund cheer squad, and Funky in particular, continue to spin their wheels arguing over whether a retail fund outlier is superior to ISFs, etc.

As ever, the only effective, tangible and solidly defensible measure is the return that the customer actually receives post ALL fees, charges, taxes, etc. the SUPERRATINGS survey is wired that way, as all should be.

As to why some retail funds with supposed better performance aren't in such surveys, well, maybe some of the executives of such funds can provide an answer to that - have you asked them Funky? I'm sure what they won't tell you, but as a trained statistician you'd of course know, is that the survivor bias of these funds is appalling and rarely can you find any retail fund that has stayed the course anything like those of the main ISFs.

But don't let such facts get in the way of a good old 'evil empire' conspirator story.
-2 #15 NoneOfUrConcern 2016-01-06 07:21
Concerned: do you charge flat fixed fee or every client the same % for advice? If the former than you cannot say exactly what the net return (net of all mgt/admin/advic e fees) is as the fixed fee as a % will vary depending on the clients balance. If the latter than your an idiot as you charge someone with a million 10x what you charge someone with a balance of $100k for similar advice. Just accept the fact that industry funds have you by the marbles in this case!
-1 #14 Sour Grapes 2016-01-05 17:01
Is it in clients best interest to be in a low cost, high returning, profit to members fund. Or in a high cost, lower performing, profit to shareholders, volume bonuses to advisers fund?
Appears to be a rhetorical question.
0 #13 Concerned 2016-01-05 16:13
Yes goose shooter we know that the strength of your anti-adviser bigotry relies on quoting the bad apples in the industry. Now how about answering the specific questions I put to you to explain. It seems that you and Pavel have nothing to add but ill informed cheap shots. Its ironic that you want to see better education standards imposed on advisers. Keep shooting goose it reinforces the ill informed bigotry that now defines the industry super funds and their cheerleaders.

Feature Video

Latest Blogs


Key budget changes for businesses

Peter Bembrick: Small businesses in particular should benefit from these changes, which include: Company tax rate reduction Over the next decade, the company tax rate will be reduced to...More >>

Robo-advice – it’s not about us

Duncan McPherson: Sadly, it appears that the vast majority of comments are from a developer's or competitor's perspective, with very few focusing on the customer. My concern was...More >>

Regime change: Why advice rules must be unified

Philippa Sheehan: I think most of us can agree that for all its foibles, the AFSL regime is a vast improvement on all previous attempts to regulate...More >>

Latest Comments