Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 336

Checking the temperature of the APRA heatmap

Around a year ago I wrote a commentary for Firstlinks 4 reasons why investment performance comparisons are flawed which outlined a number of deficiencies in commonly-used comparisons of superannuation fund investment performance. The article offered suggestions aimed at raising the level of analysis and debate in this area.

The release of APRA's 'heatmap' on MySuper funds highlights the question of how to best compare funds. Here is a sample of what the heatmap looks like, with each row representing a fund, judged according to investment performance, fees and sustainability. Dark red is bad, through to white is good.  

Let’s take a closer look at these three areas. 

1. Investment performance

Investment performance is primarily assessed over five years, with three year returns also provided in an ‘Expanded View’. The three relative measures use the following approaches:

  • A risk-adjusted return assessment, which compares a fund’s net investment return to an equivalent fund on the growth/defensive spectrum, as determined by a trend calculation as shown in the chart below. This approach is the same suggestion I made a year ago and removes the bias that funds with higher growth assets enjoy when compared with a broad range of funds (for example 60-80% growth assets).

Source: APRA Information Paper, “Heatmap – MySuper products”, November 2019, page 16 (left chart).

  • A Simple Reference Portfolio (SRP), which calculates the return for a simple listed growth and defensive portfolio as shown in the first table below, and then applied to a growth/defensive asset split as calculated for each fund using a fund’s growth/defensive breakdown as shown in the second table below.

Source: APRA Information Paper, “Heatmap – MySuper products”, November 2019, page 14.

  • A listed SAA (SAA) using a fund’s published strategic asset allocation for a fund, and using purely listed passive assets.

A key aspect of the returns analysis is the use of 3- and 5-year timeframes. While a lot better than the 1-year timeframe which the media often focuses on, few MySuper products would use an investment objective that short. Many would use 7- or 10-year timeframes, especially the more growth-oriented products. APRA plans to extend the period over time, test a product over a full market cycle. Lengthening the time frame should be a priority.

In terms of the measures themselves, given that a consistent framework is applied across all funds using published SAAs and using a defined growth/defensive split, they provide a reasonable approach. Importantly they should provide a better like-with-like comparison, based on the growth asset split.

That said, the devil could be in the detail; for example, it will be interesting to see how well the SRP and SAA benchmark returns reflect a fund’s true position (as shown by the difference between the SRP/SAA benchmark and the fund’s own benchmark return calculation).

The growth/defensive split classifies unlisted infrastructure and property as 75% growth and 25% defensive. In my experience that is arguably a higher allocation to growth than many would prescribe and will raise the performance benchmark, so some funds will no doubt argue for a greater defensive weighting for these assets. The classification of “Commodities, Other” as 50% growth/50% defensive is curious for commodities, which I believe should be 100% growth, but on average reasonable for alternatives (which includes a wide variety of products from quite defensive to very growth).

To focus attention on underperforming funds and to avoid a ranking system interpretation, the heatmap measures underperformance only (with white colour for all outperformance), down to -0.75% p.a. for the two relative measures. Given the benchmarks used and the time periods, this is fair.

2. Fees

The approach on fees is to calculate both administration fees and total fees (so also including investment management fees) at different levels of fund balances (from $10,000 to $250,000).

Administration fees start at a range of 1.0-1.4% for a $10,000 balance, which falls to 0.2%-0.4% for a $250,000 balance (so the range declines from 0.4% to 0.2%). For total fees, the range is 1.8%-2.2% for $10,000 and 1.0-1.2% for $250,000. 

The focus on lower administration fees aims to maintain pressure on funds to be as efficient as possible, which is fair. However, the focus on total fees (once again) emphasises the focus on lower fees. As it is a peer relative measure, funds with higher fees will always be in a negative position. However, high investment management fees in themselves are not a bad thing if they deliver superior investment performance (shown by the net investment return), so the total fees outcome needs to be assessed alongside the net investment return measures. Indeed, some of the results show funds with the highest fees have delivered the best results after fees.

3. Sustainability

There are three so-called ‘sustainability’ metrics - adjusted total accounts growth rate, net cash flow ratio and the net rollover ratio. While I understand the focus on cash flow and other metrics for a fund, it is not clear to me whether these are really a measure of fund performance, or of a fund’s health. Simply because a fund is in cash outflow does not make it a poor performer, rather that it is a reflection of its member base.

Should APRA have gone public?

APRA believes the MySuper heatmap provides a major enhancement to industry transparency and that it gives stakeholders credible, clear and comparable insights. This might be ambitious given the data is delivered in a spreadsheet which many retail users will find hard to navigate.

However, from the perspective of providing an improved comparison of investment performance, the heatmap approach is an improvement, through its use of a consistent methodology for all funds, by comparing funds on a like-with-like basis. There is scope for further improvement, using longer time periods, improved delineation of growth and defensive assets, and adding a measure of drawdown risk for investment performance.

From an overall perspective my concern is how the heatmap will be used. Ever on the outlook for a story, the media will focus on underperforming funds. How will members and trustees of these funds react? If they vote with their feet and exercise their right to switch funds, those funds will arguably be placed in an even worse position, potentially harming remaining members. In the extreme, fund liquidity could be compromised.

Whether APRA and the industry would be better served using the review outcome to privately pressure funds that rate poorly, rather than going public as has been the case, remains to be seen.

 

Phil Graham is an independent board member and investment consultant. Until August 2018 he was Deputy Chief Investment Officer with Mercer. Some of this article was written using the previous November 2019 APRA Information Paper.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Super performance based on fund size, risk and unlisted assets

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Is this really the best way to remove the super underperformers?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

9 winning investment strategies

There are many ways to invest in stocks, but some strategies are more effective than others. Here are nine tried and tested investment approaches - choosing one of these can improve your chances of reaching your financial goals.

Latest Updates

Taxation

100 Aussies: seven charts on who earns, pays, and owns

The Labor government is talking up tax reform to lift Australia’s ailing economic growth. Before any changes are made, it’s important to know who pays tax, who owns assets, and how much people have in their super for retirement.

7 key charts on the state of the Australian property market

The Australian property market stirs fierce debate - often bullish optimism versus crash predictions. But beyond the noise, seven charts reveal what's really driving prices and the outlook for residential real estate.

A simple alternative to the $3 million super tax

Division 296 aims to introduce improved fairness into the superannuation system, yet is overly complex. This scours the world for better ideas and suggests a simpler alternative which can achieve the same goals.

CBA and the index conundrum for super funds

After the hyperbolic rise in CBA shares, super funds are floating the idea of carving out the weightings of ASX bank securities and indexing them within their portfolios. This looks at why that might be a big error.

Strategy

10 policies to drive Australian productivity higher

Here's a comprehensive list of proposed reforms to fix Australia's stagnating economy, including introducing a flat income tax rate, reducing migration, and making childcare tax-deductible.

Interviews

Where to find big winners in Asia

As more money looks for a home outside the US, Asia may soon get some love. Fidelity's Anthony Srom outlines the best places in Asia to invest, including in Chinese consumer names, Indian financials, and Thailand.

Investment strategies

We have trouble understanding the time value of money

We overvalue the present and underestimate the future - it’s a cognitive glitch called hyperbolic discounting. It affects savings, spending, and loans, and it's more common - and costly - than we think. 

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.