Just how bad are our super fund managers? A business journo has bagged our super managers for not doing very well over the past financial year and she slipped the boot in by pointing out that we pay hefty fees for these ordinary results.
So the question is: are our super fund managers really overpaid duds?
I won’t name the critic because she’s generally on the money but in this case she might be a little harsh and could be looking for a sensational story for media relevance.
She rightly points out the following about our super fund managers over the past year:
As a consequence, the journo asks: why would half of our billions of super money be put into the dud-performing big companies in the S&P/ASX 200 index? What were these people/experts thinking?
The critic calls them index huggers, who missed out because they didn’t have more international exposure, especially the US. Index hugging might have given your fund a negative return but, with dividends and franking credits, they should have crept into positive territory. However (as the journo points out), you would have been better in a bank deposit for the year.
But hang on, how fair is it to look at super fund managers’ performances for a year?
Even the harsh super fund basher points out that there were “heady” share market returns of 2013 and 2014, when stocks grew by 22% and 17% for the year. And to be fair, it’s a bit rich (or more correctly, poor) to bag super fund managers on a one-year basis.
When clients or friends ask me about picking a good fund, I say that history can’t be a 100% reliable guide but it could say something about the consistency and performance, the investment strategy and the fees you pay. I always say not to look at the annual scoreboard but the longer run showing.
One guy who looks at all super funds with a little more fairness and with a longer run perspective is Warren Chant of Chant West, which monitors super funds.
This is what he has concluded about the financial year’s showing by super funds:
The bottom line is that super fund managers, even if they are index huggers, still deliver much better returns than term deposits. And if you can't find a good super fund, with an impressive long-term performance and fees under 1%, then you haven’t tried very hard to find one.
If you pay 1% and still average 8.6%, then what are you complaining about? And if you can consistently do better, then go for it, champ! Have a look at what safe old term deposits have delivered over 10 years.
You can’t even see a 5% return and over the two years since 2014, the returns have been closer to 2%.
If making money was so easy for everyone, everyone would be doing it. If you pay 1% for someone to do the work for you, then that’s not too bad. Once upon a time, super fund managers were overpaid but now, given their overall showing, 1% or even less doesn’t represent overpayment.
Sure, exchange traded funds (ETFs) could be an option but it would mean that the average Aussie would have to run their own self-managed super funds, which for many people would mean costs for accountants, auditors, etc. And there is important work to do, which is time consuming or might require payment for outside help.
I have always joked that anything worth doing is worth doing for money and a 1% slug for giving you an average return of 8.6% is pretty good value compared to the alternatives.
Our super fund managers are better investors than most of us and last year was a tough year but history has shown that supporting Australia’s best companies — the banks, the big miners and the other top 20 outfits — has been a winning strategy for longer than a year.
Yeah, you can do better, but it comes with more risk and the great performers of this year could be duds next year. Most of us want consistent performance over the long-term and the top super fund managers can do that.
In case you’re interested, this is what Chant West told us about the performance of the top super funds 2005-2015:
The returns are less than the 8.6% but these 10-year numbers include the GFC-effect, where the stock market dived 50%! Those 7% plus returns are pretty damn good for those accused of being one-year duds.
Beware of journos who need to write a story!
Click here to subscribe to the Switzer TV channel on YouTube and keep up to date with all of our shows.