Super Fund Selection Isn’t Just About Returns — It’s About Your Sanity

Why Your Fund Choice Matters More Than Ever

The latest data from the 2025 Adviser Ratings Financial Adviser Landscape Report reveals a stark reality: the superannuation fund you recommend can significantly impact your practice's efficiency and client outcomes. With a 116.7-point Net Promoter Score gap between the best and worst-performing funds in adviser satisfaction—up from 98.5 points last year—your choice of fund partner has never been more critical.

Our analysis of 1,193 advisers who provided 1,913 fund ratings reveals that satisfaction directly predicts fund flows. For every increase in satisfaction, there is a corresponding increase in fund flows. This relationship is strong, with a correlation coefficient of 0.78. In other words, the funds that make your life easier are the same ones your peers are actively moving client money into. Platform-based funds are capturing nearly $9 billion in positive flow intentions, while major industry funds face billions in outflows. Here's what your peers have learned about selecting the right superannuation partners.

The Reality Check: What 62% of Advisers Have Already Figured Out

Despite industry funds holding the lion's share of total superannuation assets, 62% of advisers primarily recommend retail platform-based funds, with only 14% recommending industry funds as their primary solution. This dramatic divergence from market share tells us something important: advisers are voting with their feet, choosing operational efficiency over scale.

The data reveals platform-focused funds achieve an average NPS of +31.1 among advisers, while funds heavily focused on internal advice capabilities average -15.8. That 46.9-point gap isn't about investment performance or fees; it's about whether you can serve your clients efficiently or spend your days fighting administrative battles.

Consider what your peers report about their daily experience. Platform providers deliver average adviser experience ratings of 4.1/5.0, compared to 3.2/5.0 for industry funds. On ease of onboarding, which is critical for making a good first impression with new clients, platforms score 3.9/5.0 versus 3.1/5.0. These differences translate directly into the number of hours saved or lost each week, which you can be using to help other clients.

Mid-sized practices (2-4 advisers) report the most acute challenges with industry funds, with satisfaction scores dropping by 40-50 points more than those of solo practitioners. If you're in this cohort, you're large enough to need efficiency but lack the scale to command dedicated support from mega-funds. Your peers in this segment are increasingly abandoning industry funds entirely.

The Client Demographics Game-Changer Most Advisers Miss

Here's what separates successful practices from those constantly fighting their technology: understanding that your fund needs fundamentally change based on your client mix. The 2025 data reveal what we have identified as the "Experience Inversion"—a complete shift in priorities between accumulator- and retiree-focused practices. This means that for practices serving accumulators, Client Experience is the top priority, while for those serving retirees, Adviser Experience becomes paramount.

If your practice primarily serves accumulators, your top priority should be Client Experience (99% correlation with satisfaction). Your younger clients need intuitive portals, smooth onboarding, and digital engagement tools. They have decades to recover from mistakes, so their experience matters more than sophisticated functionality. And we know that superannuation during working years is primarily a “set and forget” arrangement (although we know they take a cheeky check of their balance every now and then). 

But if you're serving retirees, everything changes. Adviser Experience becomes paramount (with a 97% correlation), while Client Experience drops to fifth place in importance. You're managing irreversible risks—sequencing risk, longevity risk, Centrelink integration. A delayed rollover or system error isn't just inconvenient; it could cost your client thousands in lost benefits or tax implications. 

Additionally, they expect you to be on top of it; you become their primary point of focus and contact, as they’re calling you, not checking the balance with their fund. 

Most importantly, pricing sensitivity drops by 30 percentage points for retiree-focused advisers. While accumulator-focused practices exhibit strong price consciousness (a 67% correlation with NPS), this falls to just 37% for those serving retirees. Translation: if you're managing complex retirement strategies, paying more for superior functionality isn't just justified—it's essential.

The Technology Stack That Can Transform Your Practice

Your peers using platform-based funds report fundamentally different operational experiences. Leading platforms score above 4.4/5.0 for overall functionality, with advisers describing them as "seamless" and "built for advisers." Compare this to industry funds averaging 2.86/5.0 for BDM support, a reflection of systemic infrastructure limitations, not just poor service.

The practical differences are stark:

Integration capabilities: Platform providers offer APIs that connect directly with your planning software. No more manual data entry or reconciliation errors. Industry funds' closed architectures mean you're copying and pasting between systems.

Processing times: Top platforms complete rollovers in days, not weeks. Advisers report online applications taking minutes versus hours with paper forms. For a practice processing 10 rollovers weekly, this difference alone can save 20+ hours monthly. That would have to be at least a dozen extra clients you can bring on a year!

Support resolution: Platform BDMs have actual authority to solve problems. Industry fund support means logging tickets and waiting. One adviser reported waiting three weeks for a simple address change that a platform resolved in one phone call.

Reporting functionality: Real-time portfolio visibility versus quarterly statements. For retiree clients needing Centrelink reporting or minimum pension confirmations, this isn't a nice-to-have—it's essential.

What High-Performing Practices Are Doing Differently

The most successful practices have developed clear fund selection criteria based on their business model and client base. Here's what top performers prioritise:

For Accumulator-Focused Practices:

 - Streamlined digital onboarding (target: under 10 minutes)
 - Competitive fee structures (industry funds can work here if service improves)
 - Strong employer plan capabilities for workplace super
 - Basic but reliable online tools for client engagement
 - Integration with cashflow and budgeting tools

For Retiree-Focused Practices:

 - Sophisticated pension calculation tools
 - Real-time Centrelink integration
 - Complex strategy support (re-contribution strategies, estate planning)
 - Dedicated technical support with aged care and social security expertise
 - Premium service levels that justify higher fees to sophisticated clients

For Hybrid Practices: The data shows practices serving both segments increasingly maintain relationships with 2-3 core funds—platforms for complex retiree needs and efficient solutions for accumulators. This isn't about having an unwieldy APL; it's about matching tools to tasks.

The Hidden Costs of Wrong Fund Selection

Your peers report that the real cost of poor fund selection goes beyond frustrated clients:

Time wastage: Advisers using bottom-tier funds spend an average of 15-20% more time on administration. For a practice with four advisers, that's effectively losing one day per adviser per week to inefficiency.

Compliance risk: Poor data feeds and manual processes lead to increased error rates. Several advisers reported SOA revisions due to fund processing errors, adding cost and reputational risk.

Staff turnover: Paraplanners and support staff burn out more quickly when they have to contend with poor systems daily. The cost of replacing and training staff dwarfs any fee savings from cheaper funds.

Growth limitations: Practices using inefficient funds report turning away clients because they can't scale their operations. The opportunity cost of lost growth often exceeds the entire cost differential between fund options.

Making the Switch: What Your Peers Have Learned

The fund flow modelling data from ProductREX shows that advisers are actively transitioning clients, with billions of dollars moving from industry to platform funds. But successful transitions require strategy:

Start with new clients: Rather than mass transfers, begin recommending better funds for new clients and those who are rolling over. This tests your processes without disrupting existing relationships.

Document everything: Build a clear rationale for fund selection based on client needs, not just efficiency. The best interests duty requires demonstrable benefits to the client.

Leverage the moment: Major life events (retirement, inheritance, job change) provide natural transition points. Your peers report 70% higher success rates when changes align with life transitions.

Set expectations: Be upfront about why you're recommending specific funds. Clients appreciate transparency about how fund choice affects service quality.

The Three-Year View: Positioning for the Future

Looking ahead, several trends will reshape fund selection criteria:

The service quality race: The moment a major industry fund achieves positive adviser NPS—likely by 2026—expect rapid improvement across the sector. Early movers will benefit most from being established with improved funds.

Regulatory evolution: Future accountability frameworks for superannuation funds will likely include service metrics alongside investment performance. Funds that already excel in service will have competitive advantages.

The retirement wave: As baby boomers transition to the pension phase en masse, funds with superior retirement functionality will capture disproportionate flows. Position your practice accordingly.

Technology convergence: The gap between platforms and industry funds will narrow as technology becomes commoditised. Differentiation will shift to service quality and specialised functionality. (But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to sit there waiting and hoping). 

Your Action Plan

Based on what top-performing practices are doing:

1. Audit your current fund relationships against the satisfaction drivers that matter for your client base
2. Calculate the true cost of inefficiency—include time, errors, and opportunity cost, not just fees
3. Test alternatives with new clients before committing to wholesale changes
4. Build selection criteria that align with your practice strategy and client demographics
5. Document your framework for fund selection to support best interests duty compliance

The 116.7-point satisfaction gap between the best and worst funds isn't just a statistic—it represents thousands of hours of adviser time saved or lost annually. Your peers have already figured out that choosing the right fund partners isn't about following the crowd or defaulting to the biggest players. It's about deliberately selecting partners whose operational excellence amplifies your ability to serve clients effectively.

In an industry managing $4.1 trillion, the funds you choose to work with will increasingly determine not just your efficiency but your capacity to grow. The question isn't whether to optimise your fund selection—it's whether you'll do it proactively or be forced to react when your competitors gain an insurmountable efficiency advantage.

Article by:

Adviser Ratings

Was this helpful content?Let others know - share and vote-up