Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 154

How to make in-house investment management work

In-house investment management is a hot topic in the Australian superannuation industry. Organic growth and industry consolidation mean many funds are attaining a size at which managing their investments in-house becomes a serious proposition. SuperRatings data reveals that about 60% of superannuation funds manage some assets in-house, with nearly one-fifth reporting a substantial commitment of 20% or more of assets.

Why does in-house management matter?

Managing assets in-house aligns with the policy agenda of improving the efficiency of the superannuation industry. Managing in-house, rather than contracting out to external investment managers, can not only reduce investment expenses for larger funds. It can also provide opportunities to access additional returns, tailor the portfolio towards member needs, and address capacity constraints as funds under management grow. It helps funds address the problem that active managers are only able to handle mandates up to a certain size. Thus, in-house management can invest in ways that not only enhance member outcomes, but are also more scalable and hence better able to accommodate asset growth and perhaps consolidation.

A natural progression

The shift to in-house management can be seen as a natural extension of historical trends. Traditionally, most superannuation funds have been outsourcers: initially of the entire investment process to a balanced manager (the 1980s model); then later by appointing specialist external investment managers, often under advice from asset consultants (the 1990s model). The construction of multi-manager asset portfolios, oversight of cash and currency management, and active asset allocation has required the creation of internal investment management teams. Indeed, much of the activity around in-house management can be traced to funds putting in place internal teams that possess the skills and confidence to directly manage the assets.

Examining the how and why

The 2016 CIFR study In-House Investment Management: Making and Implementing the Decision explores the contrast between the traditional model of outsourcing to external investment managers and in-house management. The research includes field interviews with 20 senior industry executives from superannuation funds, asset consultants, and research houses.

The motivations to adopt in-house management are varied, including:

  • return impact
  • capacity considerations
  • governance structures
  • alignment and culture
  • ability to attract, retain and incentivise experienced investment professionals
  • risk management

Each participant in the research seemed to have a different approach to deciding whether assets should be managed in-house. Some believe that in-house management can provide access to higher returns, while others expect gross returns to fall, but net returns to increase because costs will fall even further. Some consider the ability to tailor investments to be of prime importance, while others argue that tailoring can be effectively achieved using external managers. Some perceive staff management and culture as major challenges, while others think that these problems can be solved by targeting culturally-aligned staff. Some view systems as critical and a significant source of risk, while others trivialise the difficulty of establishing reliable systems. There is little industry-wide consensus.

There are some common elements in how in-house management is being addressed. All participants approach the decision on an asset-class-by-asset-class basis. They recognise that in-house management may not work for all assets or strategies. Cash is often the first candidate for managing in-house, given that investing in cash is relatively straightforward, can be implemented with modest resources, and has complementarities with fund liquidity management. Beyond that, there is only limited consistency across superannuation funds on what assets they prefer to manage in-house.

Structuring options

Four broad approaches for structuring in-house management were encountered during the interviews:

  • Dedicated internal structure, where an asset class is managed entirely in-house
  • Hybrid external/internal models, under which the in-house team is responsible for a slice of the assets in conjunction with external managers
  • Co-investments, where the fund piggy-backs on the ability of an external manager to identify and source assets through taking a ‘slice on the side’ and
  • Partnerships, either between funds or with an external manager, involving the fund providing capital while some management functions are performed externally.

The hybrid model appears popular in Australia, especially in core listed assets like equities and fixed income. Within the hybrid model, there is a further choice regarding the degree to which the in-house capability is segmented and treated as just another manager within the portfolio; versus being integrated and used to ‘complete’ the portfolio in some way. The hybrid model also raises the issue of respecting the intellectual property rights of external managers: again, there is a variety of views.

CIFR’s input: A decision framework, and some views

The study presents a framework that asset owners like superannuation funds might use for making and implementing decisions to manage in-house. It addresses four elements: capabilities, costs, alignment and governance. It weighs up the potential impact on net returns along the way, each with a checklist of potential aspects for consideration.

Based on the research, CIFR is generally supportive of in-house management, with the caveat that the conditions must be right for the fund, and that it needs to be implemented appropriately. Done properly, in-house management can generate improved net returns with increased control, allowing assets to be managed in a way that is better directed to member needs and delivered with greater confidence. It establishes a platform for the future, if designed as scalable and flexible. However, integrated hybrid models still have merit. These structures allow the portfolio to be managed in a manner that can enhance returns while supporting tailoring and flexibility, yet retains many of the self-disciplinary benefits of having external managers within the structure.

Some mistakes will inevitably be made by funds who manage in-house. However, fear of error should not prevent in-house management from being embraced where benefits are evident. In-house management is rarely of sufficient size to ‘sink a fund’ in its own right, as it typically occurs as discrete strategies across a range of asset classes. Rather, it is investment functions that cut across the entire portfolio – such as asset allocation and currency management – that carry more inherent risk.

Looking forward

The trend towards greater in-house investment management by superannuation funds has much further to run, driven by industry and fund growth, competitive tensions and innovation. The pioneering and successful efforts thus far provide encouragement. While members should benefit on balance, some bumps and set-backs are to be expected along the way. One interesting issue is the impact on external managers – their pricing, product offerings and engagement – given that they are facing the rise of a powerful new player on their turf: their former clients, the asset owners.

 

Geoff Warren is Research Director at the Centre for International Finance and Regulation (CIFR). The study, In-House Investment Management: Making and Implementing the Decision, is co-authored by Geoff Warren, David R. Gallagher and Tim Gapes, from the CIFR.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Interview with David Bell, CIO, AUSCOAL Super

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.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

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.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Trump's US dollar assault is fuelling CBA's rise

Australian-based investors have been perplexed by the steep rise in CBA's share price But it's becoming clear that US funds are buying into our largest bank as a hedge against potential QE and further falls in the US dollar.

Investment strategies

With markets near record highs, here's what you should do with your portfolio

Markets have weathered geopolitical turmoil, hitting near record highs. Investors face tough decisions on valuations, asset concentration, and strategic portfolio rebalancing for risk control and future returns.

Property

Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages

Soaring house prices are deepening Australia's cost of living crisis - and possibly distorting marriage decisions. New research links unexpected price changes to whether couples separate or silently struggle together.

Investment strategies

Google is facing 'the innovator's dilemma'

Artificial intelligence is forcing Google to rethink search - and its future. As usage shifts and rivals close in, will it adapt in time, or become a cautionary tale of disrupted disruptors?

Investment strategies

Study supports what many suspected about passive investing

The surge in passive investing doesn’t just mirror the market—it shapes it, often amplifying the rise of the largest firms and creating new risks and opportunities. For investors, understanding these effects is essential.

Property

Should we dump stamp duties for land taxes?

Economists have long flagged the idea of swapping property taxes for land taxes for fairness and equity reasons. This looks at why what seems fairer may not deliver the outcomes that we expect.

Investing

Being human means being a bad investor

Many of the behaviours that have made humans such a successful species also make it difficult for us to be good, long-term investors. The key to better decision making is to understand what makes us human and adapt.

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.