While superannuation members in Australian property funds beat out those in global property funds, only 16% of those funds actually made a return in 2020, according to data.
FE Analytics data found that the Australian property superannuation sector average lost 3.38% compared with the global property super sector average that lost 9.7% last year.
Australian property super sector v global property super sector returns in 2020
Source: FE Analytics
Only eight funds out of 110 in the Australian property super sector managed to make a return.
Four of the five top performing funds were Ironbark funds. These were CFS FirstChoice Ironbark Wholesale Property Securities PersSuper (3.46%), CFS FirstChoice Personal Super Ironbark Property Securities (3.29%), Suncorp Brighter Super Personal Ironbark Paladin Property Securities (3.09%), CFS Ironbark Property Securities Select (2.64%), and TelstraSuper Property (2.17%).
Top performing Australian property super funds in 2020
Source: FE Analytics
The only fund that managed to recover losses from the March sell-off induced by the COVID-19 pandemic was the TelstraSuper fund, which was up 0.15% by the end of the year from its previous highest point in February.
At the other end of the scale it was Freehold Pinnacle Illiquid Property that lost the most during the year at 14.84%. This was followed by OnePath Life DIY Super Property Securities NEF (-14.57%), OnePath DA Property Securities Superannuation (-14.53%), OnePath Life DIY Super Property Securities EF (-14.19%), and OnePath OA Personal Super Onepath Property Securities NEF (-14.17%).
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.