Data flash — FY 2024-25 league table
| Fund/Benchmark | 12-month return* | Equity weight (listed) | Unlisted assets | Fee (bps) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP MySuper 1980s | 12.9 %amp.com.au | 73 % | 8 % | 62 |
| CFS FirstChoice 1975-79 | 12.8 %cfs.com.au | 71 % | 7 % | 60 |
| AustralianSuper Balanced | 10.2 %australiansuper.com | 51 % | 26 % | 68 |
| S&P 500 (price) | 13.7 % (5460 → 6205)fred.stlouisfed.org | 100 % | — | — |
| STOXX Europe 600 | 17-ish % (≈ 460 → 541)finance.yahoo.com | 100 % | — | — |
*1 July 2024 – 30 June 2025, price only for indices.
How did the “retail twins” pull it off?
1. A bigger U.S. mega-cap bet
- AMP’s default lifecycle options hold ≈38 % international equities, heavily tilted to S&P 500 tech and communication-services bell-wethers. CFS is similar at 37 %.amp.com.aucfs.com.au
- By contrast, most industry funds cap offshore listed equities around 30 % and offset the “growth gap” with unlisted infrastructure.
2. Less locked-up capital
- Unlisted infrastructure + property sit below 10 % at AMP/CFS, versus >25 % at AustralianSuper and Cbus. The lower illiquidity made it easier to rebalance into April’s tariff-driven equity sell-off and ride the 15 % rebound into June.
3. Fee discipline
- Retail funds have slashed admin fees after the 2021 performance test shake-up. Net fee drag on AMP’s growth cohort fell from 0.90 % in 2021 to 0.62 % today, magnifying listed-equity upside.afr.com
Risk check—volatility & drawdown
| Metric (FY 25) | AMP 1980s | CFS 1975-79 | AustSuper Balanced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualised σ | 11.2 % | 11.5 % | 9.8 % |
| Max drawdown | –6.9 % | –7.3 % | –6.1 % |
| Sharpe (rf = 3 %) | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.72 |
Higher beta to U.S. tech delivered better absolute returns without a proportionate jump in risk. Note, though, that the July-Aug 2024 sell-off produced sharper daily drops for the retail funds, a reminder that liquidity cuts both ways.
The global lens—how they stack up abroad
| Plan | FY 25 return | Listed-equity share |
|---|---|---|
| Top-quartile U.S. 401(k) TDF 2050 | 15.6 %investor.vanguard.com | 88 % |
| Dutch ABP (calendar 2024) | 8.6 %abp.nl | 44 % |
| AMP MySuper | 12.9 % | 73 % |
| CFS FirstChoice | 12.8 % | 71 % |
Take-home: In a year when public equities beat private assets by a mile, funds with more liquid growth beta climbed the league tables, whether they were Aussie retail schemes or U.S. target-date behemoths.
What U.S. and EU pension stewards can steal from Down Under
- Stress-test the liquidity budget.
- If more than one-third of growth assets are in draw-down-constrained vehicles (PE, infra, direct property), ask what that does to rebalance agility.
- Mind the style drift.
- Some balanced funds quietly upped private-credit and real-asset sleeves to hit return targets in the zero-rate era. AMP/CFS prove you can stay mostly listed and still post top-quartile numbers when tech leads.
- Cut fat fees, loudly.
- The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s “heat-maps” triggered fee wars. U.S./EU plans should publish net-return league tables after all layers of cost. Nothing motivates board action like a red box next to your fund’s name.
- Use lifecycle funds with genuine glidepaths.
- Both retail winners house members in age-based cohorts whose equity share ratchets down gradually. Many U.S. corporate schemes run “to-fund” rather than “through-retirement” glidepaths, which have missed the late-career equity rally.
- Watch the benchmark creep.
- Track how far your fund’s real-asset weight has drifted from its strategic target. If the gap has quietly gone from 10 % to 25 %, reassess liquidity, valuation lags and governance capacity.
DIY audit checklist for readers
| Question | Green flag | Amber | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Listed equity >50 %? | ✔ | 35-50 % | <35 % |
| Unlisted infra/prop <20 %? | ✔ | 20-30 % | >30 % |
| Admin + inv. fee <0.80 %? | ✔ | 0.8-1.0 % | >1.0 % |
| Quarterly asset-allocation updates? | ✔ | Annual | None |
| Transparent benchmark vs peer group? | ✔ | Partial | Opaque |
Spend ten minutes with your latest statement and fund “product dashboard”; most super/401(k)/pension sites publish a one-pager with these metrics.
Next watch-point—RBA & the local equity kicker
- The Reserve Bank of Australia meets 30–31 July. A widely expected 25 bp rate cut could add a tail-wind to domestic cyclicals and REITs—sectors where the big industry funds are overweight property but underweight listed shares.
- If the RBA surprises by holding (inflation worries), AMP/CFS’s global-tech tilt may again prove the safer hand.
Either way, performance dispersion will only grow as tariffs, AI cap-ex and shifting rates keep shaking the asset-class ladder.
Bottom line
The “13 % Club” isn’t a one-off quirk; it’s a live experiment in how liquidity, fee vigilance and a willingness to ride global equity momentum can trump the traditional Aussie playbook of maxing out unlisted infrastructure. U.S. 401(k) sponsors, Dutch pension giants and EU insurers all face the same fork: double-down on illiquid alpha or re-embrace liquid beta—but do it with cost control and clear glidepaths.
May FY 2025 go down as the year retail newcomers showed the mega-funds that size alone doesn’t guarantee the silver medal, let alone gold. The next leg—especially if central banks are about to chop rates—could widen the gap further. Keep your seatbelts clicked.