I was recently asked by a kiwi friend about the major differences between the Australian economy and its counterpart across the Tasman. The two that immediately sprang to mind were Australia’s mining sector and its superannuation system.
My friend acknowledged the first difference but suggested that, in KiwiSaver, NZ now has something similar to Australia’s super system. That reflects a failure to appreciate the scale and significance of the Australian system.
Last month, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority released the superannuation statistics for the September 2024 quarter. They revealed total Australian superannuation assets now exceeding A$4 trillion (NZ$4.4 trillion). That compares to just NZ$110 billion in KiwiSaver at 31 March 2024.
In the September year Australians contributed more than A$190 bln to super while in the March year kiwis contributed just over NZ$11 bln to KiwiSaver.
The scale of contributions in Australia is driven primarily by three factors – the compulsory nature of the super system, the inability to withdraw super funds before 60, and the generous tax concessions provided for both contributions and superannuation earnings.
Employers are required to make a minimum contribution equal to 11.5% of an employee’s earnings. That will rise to 12% next year. This ‘superannuation guarantee’ creates a constant stream of money pouring into the super system.
Australia now has the fifth largest pension or savings market in the world after the US, Japan, the UK, and Canada. Superannuation assets are equal to around 150% of Australia’s GDP, a ratio that puts Australia fourth behind the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada.
A $4 tln superannuation pool has enormous consequences for the Australian economy. Obviously, it generates wealth and financial security for many Australians and takes pressure of the means-tested state age pension. However, it also stimulates the growth of financial markets and provides capital for investment throughout the economy, including in vital infrastructure.
Unsurprisingly, the growth of Australia’s super system has led to some huge superannuation funds and the emergence of a substantial funds management industry.
The two largest super funds, based on a not-for-profit mutual fund structure, are AustralianSuper which manages more than A$340 bln and Australian Retirement Trust with around A$310 bln. The next six biggest funds each manage more than A$80 bln.
These funds have the advantages of scale, including access to sophisticated investment opportunities worldwide, diversification by asset class and jurisdiction, the capacity to invest directly in high-value assets, and the ability to charge lower fees than smaller funds.
International diversification is a key feature of the Australian super system. Given the numbers involved, it’s necessary both to maximise returns and to avoid excess exposure to the domestic Australian economy. The system enables individuals with small super amounts to invest indirectly in a wide range of jurisdictions that would otherwise not be available to them.
AustralianSuper illustrates this international diversification. With over 3.4 million members, it now has around half its funds, or A$150 bln, invested offshore and has offices in London, New York, and Beijing.
Diversification of asset class is another key feature of the super system. Again, the goal is to spread risk. Data from the Thinking Ahead Institute shows the asset allocation in the world’s seven largest pension markets.
2023 asset allocation in top seven pension markets
Source: Thinking Ahead Institute
Australia has the highest allocation to equities and the lowest to bonds. This constitutes a higher risk profile than the other pension markets. That leaves the Australian super system much more exposed than those markets to a stock market crash of the type seen in 1987, 2000, and 2007.
In recent years at least, the Australian system has produced healthy returns. Chant West tracks the performance of Australian super funds based on their investment approach – from the lowest risk ‘conservative’ to the highest risk ‘all growth.
Diversified fund performance (results to 30 June 2024)
Source: Chant West
These are impressive numbers and they help to explain how the super pool has grown to more than A$4 tln. That growth also confirms the wisdom of Warren Buffet’s faith in the power of compounding.
In the 32 years to June 2024, the growth category experienced only five negative annual returns. Still, as most funds management advertising constantly repeats, ‘past performance is no guarantee of future performance’.
In recent months, some potential risks with Australia’s super system have been in the news. The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report in October highlighted a liquidity risk. While there are comprehensive restrictions on the ability of super fund members to access their funds, members can switch between different investment options in a matter of days, eg. from ‘high growth’ to ‘conservative’. That could create liquidity problems for a fund with significant illiquid exposures such as private equity and hedge fund investments.
In the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Financial Stability Review in September, the RBA identified super funds as ‘an increasingly important part of the Australian financial system’. For example, super funds ‘directly hold nearly one-third of bank short-term debt securities and over one-quarter of equity issued by domestic banks’.
According to the RBA, this connectedness carries some risk including ‘the ability to amplify shocks’. To ameliorate the risk, the RBA states that super funds need to ‘strengthen their liquidity risk management practices’.
The other major risk of the Australian super system is a fiscal risk. The tax concessions built into the super system, including zero tax on earnings once a person retires, have contributed to its success. However, those concessions are becoming increasingly expensive as the amounts invested in super rapidly rise.
The current version of Australia’s compulsory super system began in 1992. Many kiwis don’t realise that a NZ Labour government introduced a compulsory superannuation scheme nearly two decades earlier. However, it was soon cancelled by the next National government under PM Robert Muldoon.
It’s an interesting counterfactual to consider how different the kiwi economy would be today if that scheme had survived.
*Ross Stitt is a freelance writer with a PhD in political science. He is a New Zealander based in Sydney. His articles are part of our 'Understanding Australia' series.
14 Comments
What a complete 'drop-kick' Muldoon was. How can National stalwarts ever rest easy knowing that their party was exclusively responsible for the most lasting damage ever done to the NZ economy. Muldoon was an absolute prick and there should be statutes of Muldoon upside down with his head in a bucket of you know what. And we're seeing it again with Luxon and co...the three wise monkeys and their futile tax cuts.
Muldoon openly campaigned on the issue and his intent, it was no secret to the voters. Even commissioned a Hanna-Barbera cartoon with dancing Cossacks to illustrate the "communist" nature of compulsory super.
And then you have those very voters today suggesting they paid for the super they receive now, trotting out phrases like "social contract" and unsubstantiated claims they funded their own super from taxes paid.
Blame sits squarely with every single National voter in 1975.
"zero tax on earnings once a person retires"
This is how I see the superannuation I will receive. Effectively I will be getting back the tax I pay on other investments. My superannuation wont cost the country anything. Why not have a system where you stop paying tax when you reach 65? This would make investing for retirement more attractive and negate the need to pay out a "benefit".
What happens if your investments get wiped out? Not suggesting they would because I imagine you're probably an incredibly savvy investor, but let's say hypothetically at the age of 62 your investments get wiped out? At least you won't have to worry about paying tax on what little you receive when you hit 65.
But next problem: If over 65s have a significant stake in a significant portion of the economic activity in this country? Do companies start channeling tax free profits to their over retiree directors? Wage earners carrying more of the tax burden while they wait for over 65's to drop dead so they can advance their careers, because why retire if that 6 figure salary is tax free?
I guess that's the beauty of the current system, it's a UBI for the retired and available to everyone. With superannuation payments being minimal it does put a cap on the amount of tax that is returned. Keep things as they are or have a limit on the tax free earnings.
I've written it before and write it again, it's not the well off that people need to worry about with superannuation, it's those that retire with no investments. At least well off superannuants continue to earn and pay tax.
Compounding doesn't have any benefit if inflation exceeds the rate of compounding interest.
True. And if capital appreciation + dividends is simply the result of monetary expansion, it arguably doesn't have any benefit.
For ex, if you look at the SPX Total Return in USD terms v. in gold terms, from January 1999 to now:
USD: +695%
Gold: -17%
System 1 thinking would suggest SPX Total Return is beating inflation and 'growing wealth'. But when benchmarked against gold, what you're being told is not all it seems.
Australia now has the fifth largest pension or savings market in the world after the US, Japan, the UK, and Canada.
The Japan Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), the world's largest pension fund, has a significant portion of its assets invested offshore. As of the latest reports, GPIF's asset allocation includes approximately 24.86% in foreign equities and 23.86% in foreign bonds, totaling around 48.72% of its assets allocated to international investments (https://www.asianinvestor.net/article/japans-gpif-reaps-record-annual-g…)
Japan has a two-tiered pension system that has been used to for infrastructure development by reallocating funds towards public projects. This is a key reason why their have an infrastructure surplus compared to the Anglosphere nations.
I wouldn’t trust Waka Kotahi with a single cent of my super even if they went to market and selected a Japanese company as Prime for a national highway system projected to increase national productivity by 1000%. They would somehow screw it up, double the project length and budget and need more KiwiSaver funds to save them.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.