How to choose a Super Fund

When it came to our default fund here at The Motley Fool, we had to answer this question.

A young woman sits at her desk in deep contemplation with her hand to her chin while seriously considering information she is reading on her laptop

Image source: Getty Images

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

Which Super Fund should you choose?

It's a good question. I know, because I'm asked regularly.

Including by an old school friend of mine. (No, she's not old. Nor am I, thanks for asking. But we're 'old friends'. Or, at least, that's how I like to frame it!)

Anyway, the point is that she wasn't sure if she was in the best fund, and wanted my thoughts.

Because I'm not allowed to give personal advice – and because I figured that if you're reading this, you're wondering the same thing – I thought I'd give the question, and my answer, a wider general audience.

The first thing, like anything in investing, is that I don't know which fund will be the best one, from here.

The future is unknowable.

What I can do – and we did for our own staff when choosing our default Super fund here at The Motley Fool – is think in terms of probabilities.

And I'm going to start not with the choice of fund, but with some basic investment principles.

See, there are four components to maximising your portfolio's long term value. They are, in rough order:

1. Time: the longer you invest, the more time you give your money to compound
2. Contributions: The more you save, every week, month or year, the more you'll have
3. Fees: Investment returns are uncertain. Fees are concrete
4. Returns: Finding the right, market-beating, investments

Now, it might sound strange for someone who picks stocks for a living, and whose wage is paid by a company that sells access to same, to put 'returns' fourth.

But hey – I'm in favour of honesty. And the company I work for, The Motley Fool, prides itself on telling it straight.

So, for the record, returns are a really important part of investing, and if you can improve them, I reckon you absolutely should!

But, in my humble opinion, the other things are more important (and give those returns the best portfolio on which to do their work!).

See, the range of investment returns available over the long term to you and I (I'm sorry to say that neither of us is Warren Buffett) is decent, but not enormous. Most people will probably be within 2% of the market's average annual return, over decades, if they invest sensibly (that's not a given, unfortunately. Investing sensibly is its own article. Assume things like: 'be diversified, buy quality, don't overpay, don't chase returns. don't speculate, don't use leverage'.)

Now, that 2%, compounded over time, can make an enormous difference. It's why I'm here and why I try to find the best investments I can.

But lined up against the first three factors, it's almost certainly still fourth.

Let me tell you why.

First, if you can earn, say, 9% per annum, your money will double roughly every 8 years.

So, someone investing for 8 years could see their $10,000 double to $20,000. Not bad for just leaving well enough alone.

If you start early enough to extend your investment horizon to 16 years, you'll have $40,000 instead. Now we're talking.

But let's keep going:

24 years? $80,000
32 years? $160,000
40 years? $320,000

Starting at 18 and retiring at 66?

That's 48 years and $640,000!

Yes, that excludes fees and taxes, but I'd rather pay tax on a $640,000 portfolio rather than a $320,000 one.

And – as good as I'd like to think I am – I don't think you should bank on me getting you $640,000 in 16 or 24 years, just by being a master stockpicker!

So, time matters.

Similarly – and I won't repeat the maths – if you started with $20,000, rather than $10,000, you'd end up with $1.28m in our hypothetical example, rather than $640,000.

Can't find $20k upfront? Me either. But regularly adding to your portfolio (remember, the example above assumes one investment, then nothing thereafter) can turbocharge your portfolio size.

And – again – it's easier, more likely and probably more profitable to add money regularly rather than assuming (hoping!) you can make up the difference by being the next investment superstar.

And our third? Fees.

Our investment returns might be unpredictable. But fees are completely and totally knowable and – unless you make different choices – unavoidable.

And… often very large.

Like the interest saved when paying more off a mortgage, you can lock in savings simply by choosing a lower-fee investment strategy.

Now, I'm not against fees, overall. If you provide a service, you should get paid.

I'm not even against performance fees – if someone does a genuinely great job, they should be paid more.

What I am against is high fees, levied irrespective of the performance of the manager.

Comparison site, Canstar, says "Super funds on Canstar's database charge on average between 0.91% and 1.21% of an account balance in fees each year."

Now, that gap alone is 0.3% – which gets added to your investment returns, if you save it.

But what if you could pay a fraction of that.

Australian Super, for example, charges $1 week plus 0.1% of your balance for administration. And then as little as 0.09% of your balance for investment fees.

That's… tiny.

Now, as the ads say, 'compare the pair'. If you could get the same investment performance from two different funds (no guarantee there, but stick with me), but pay less in fees… well, that'd boost your portfolio meaningfully over time.

And if you didn't know whether you could get the same performance from the different funds?

Well you have a choice. You can have:

– Uncertain performance with low fees

Or

– Uncertain performance with high fees

I'm going to suggest it hasn't taken you long to work out which is likely the better bet.

And the fourth? That's the stockpicking bit. But again, if you're putting your money in Super, and you don't know the odds of your fund beating the market over the long term… well, we're back to that 'uncertain performance' bit.

And so?

Well, thanks for reading through the above. See, any time I provide general financial advice – to readers, members or anyone else – I want people not only to hear my answer, but to understand my thinking.

Because, once this article is finished, you'll go on your way. So yes, I want to answer the question, but I want you to have a sense of the 'why', so that next time you reconsider your investment options, you've been equipped with the knowledge of how to do so.

I imagine you've probably already been able to guess my answer on choosing a Super Fund, by the way.

When it came to our default fund here at The Motley Fool, we had to answer this very question.

And essentially, our choice followed the thinking above.

We chose AustralianSuper for our team. We thought it was the best option at the time – it was a very large not-for-profit fund with low fees thanks to its non-profit status and enormous scale.

Is it still the very best option today? I'm not sure. We're probably due to review our own default fund.

But in general, I'd imagine if we do make a change, we'd choose another fund from the same category.

For most people, I'd suggest looking very seriously at a very-low-cost, not-for-profit Superannuation fund. One of the Industry Funds, perhaps. Or another not-for-profit option.

When you can't control the future returns, keeping costs as low as (reasonably) possible is your next best bet.

Fool on!

Motley Fool contributor Scott Phillips has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia's parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.

More on Motley Fool Take Stock

A young boy laughs with his grandpa as he puts a fishing net over his head.
Motley Fool Take Stock

An investing lesson – sort of – well learned

Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valour.

Read more »

A man sits thoughtfully on the couch with a laptop on his lap.
Motley Fool Take Stock

An 'all-time high' investing plan

With the ASX near all-time highs, what's an investor to do?

Read more »

A man leans forward over his phone in his hands with a satisfied smirk on his face although he has just learned something pleasing or received some satisfying news.
Motley Fool Take Stock

How should investors respond to US rate cuts?

It was a big cut. How should investors respond?

Read more »

Happy young couple saving money in piggy bank.
Motley Fool Take Stock

The three things that drive your investment returns

Bottom line? Kenny did a great job. But Penny did better.

Read more »

a woman puts her fingers in her ears with a pained expression on her face with her eyes closed as though trying to block hearing bad news or an unpleasant loud noise.
Motley Fool Take Stock

Enough with the corporate spin!

The spin is making me dizzy.

Read more »

A male investor sits at his desk looking at his laptop screen with his hand to his chin pondering whether to buy Origin shares
Motley Fool Take Stock

The recession(s) we're already having

The headlines hide the real story.

Read more »

a couple consider the advice from a man with documents laid out on a table and the man holding a tablet in his hand.
Motley Fool Take Stock

Here's why you're paying too much for financial advice

Advice is too expensive. Here's why...

Read more »

A sunset scene though the fingers of two hands, indicating the bigger picture
Motley Fool Take Stock

The secret of stock market success in a single picture

It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

Read more »