Inside Super #7 2026 | Super Forces at Work Report interview summary

Reframing advantage: distribution, retirement and the limits of scale

As part of the 2026 Super Forces at Work Report (14th edition), we conducted 32 interviews with senior executives across the Australian superannuation sector, giving rise to more than 500 pages of transcripts.

These interviews were undertaken by Right Lane Consulting staff between November 2025 and January 2026. We are grateful to all participants for their time, openness and insights, which form the basis of the perspectives presented here.

We explored 4 areas: industry structure and competition; growth and scale; cost; and the transformations shaping institutional capital. While these were explicitly covered, the more useful insight sits beneath them, in how executives describe member flows, decision-making, cost pressures and capability build.

Across the interviews, we present both common perspectives, where there was broad alignment, and emerging signals and tensions, which may reflect developing thinking or perspectives that align with broader sector commentary.

Two shifts cut across these discussions. First, member decisions at key points, particularly as balances grow and members approach retirement, are becoming more consequential. Second, while scale remains an important positional advantage, its benefits are uneven and depend on how it is applied.

These shifts are explored through 4 lenses in this article: how member decisions are made; the role of scale; cost pressures; and the structural transformations underway.

1. Member decisions at higher balances are becoming more active and more influential

The most consistent shift described is that advice-driven decision-making is becoming increasingly influential for larger balances, especially in the lead-up to retirement.

Common perspectives

Advice remains central, with increasing effectiveness in key segments. What is changing is that IFAs appear to be more effective in shaping higher-value flows, supported by improved tooling, platforms and client engagement models.
Retirement remains an area of strategic divergence. Many executives highlighted that there is no clear convergence on a single approach. Funds are taking different positions on:
the role of products versus guidance versus advice;
how much support to provide directly;
how to engage members as they transition out of accumulation.
A number of executives noted that member behaviour in retirement remains difficult to predict, particularly in relation to drawdown patterns, engagement with support, and the use of advice.

‘If you look at the next 5 to 10 years for a super fund… the main game is going to be obviously retirement… that means we need to find a way to provide our members with the financial advice they need.’

‘The platform piece… Hub24, Netwealth… have taken quite a lot of [FUM] flow… retail funds have got better competence there in relation to the advisory market.’

Emerging signals and tensions

Advice capability may become a clearer source of differentiation. Several executives suggested that differences in access to advice, quality of engagement and integration with member experience could drive variation in outcomes across funds.
Variation in member outcomes may increase. A small number noted that differences in access to advice and engagement could lead to greater dispersion in member outcomes, particularly in retirement; outcomes may become less systemically consistent and more dependent on how members engage.
Limits to scaling advice models remain unresolved. Some executives expressed scepticism about how far advice models can scale economically without changes to delivery, particularly given cost and regulatory constraints.

What this might mean for you

If more value sits in decisions made later in the member lifecycle, the key question becomes: How effectively does your fund support decisions at the points where outcomes are most sensitive?

This may require:

focusing on moments that matter, particularly approaching retirement;
being clear about how the fund works alongside advice channels, rather than independently of them;
considering how different forms of support (guidance, tools, advice) operate together.

2. Scale remains valuable, but its impact varies across the value chain

Executives consistently described scale as important; however, its benefits are uneven across investment, cost and member-facing areas.

Common perspectives

Scale supports investment access and cost efficiency. Most executives noted that larger funds are better placed to: access large and complex investment opportunities; negotiate fees; and spread fixed costs across a larger base.
Benefits of scale are clearer in investment than in member-facing areas. Many executives highlighted that scale is less advantageous in:
member engagement, where relevance matters more than reach;
retirement, where outcomes are individualised;
service responsiveness, where complexity can increase with size.
Organisational effectiveness becomes more important at scale. Several executives emphasised that as funds grow, performance depends increasingly on: how decisions are made; how accountabilities are structured; and how well different parts of the organisation are aligned.

‘Scale is mandatory… how can you possibly meet the challenges of cyber risk, platform stability, continuous investment… members are comparing us to banks, Spotify… you need the capital to invest to do that.’

‘As these funds get bigger and bigger… the costs are going to continue to go up… how do you actually defray those costs…’

Emerging signals and tensions

Signs of increasing organisational complexity. Some executives pointed to: additional layers of decision-making; slower processes; and challenges maintaining clarity of ownership.
More selective approach to growth and mergers. Several executives pointed to the practical challenges of growth, particularly in relation to merger integration, how additional scale is used, and whether it delivers tangible benefits.
Alternative approaches to building capability. A small number suggested that partnerships or more focused strategies may achieve similar outcomes without requiring further scale.

What this might mean for you

If scale does not deliver uniform benefits, the key question becomes: Where does scale improve outcomes, and where does it introduce additional complexity?

This may require: being explicit about where scale adds value; recognising where it may have limited impact or create friction; and ensuring growth is linked to clear, practical uses of scale.

3. Cost reflects competing priorities across capability, service and efficiency

Cost is being shaped by simultaneous pressure to invest, improve services and maintain efficiency, rather than a single directional objective.

Common perspectives

Cost growth is linked to capability and service improvements. Most executives linked rising costs to:
building internal capability;
increased investment complexity;
investment in technology and data;
improving member services, particularly around retirement.
External scrutiny remains strong. Many executives noted continued focus from boards and regulators on: cost levels; transparency; and demonstrating value for money.
Linking cost to outcomes remains difficult. Several executives highlighted the challenge of connecting specific investments to measurable improvements in member outcomes.

‘There was only regulatory pressure on costs… as though any cost is a bad cost and there is no value to be gained out of expenditure.’

Emerging signals and tensions

Cumulative impact of incremental cost decisions. Some executives noted that while individual investments are justified, the overall cost base may increase in ways that are not always assessed in aggregate.
Tension between service expectations and fees. Several executives pointed to the challenge of expanding services, particularly advice and retirement support, while maintaining low fees.
Diverging views on internalisation economics. A small number of executives highlighted that the cost implications of internalisation are more complex than they initially appear.

What this might mean for you

If cost reflects multiple priorities, the key question becomes: which parts of the cost base are strengthening member outcomes or strategic capability, and which are simply accumulating through complexity?

This may require:

distinguishing between strategic investment and structural cost;
assessing the combined impact of multiple initiatives;
improving how costs are explained and connected to outcomes.

4. Structural transformations are expanding capability, while increasing execution demands

A set of structural shifts is shaping the industry, including:

internalisation;
privatisation (private markets);
digitisation;
internationalisation;
collectivisation;
decarbonisation;
politicisation;
organisation (operating model evolution, particularly within investment functions).

These are not being adopted uniformly, and not all funds are pursuing them to the same extent.

Common perspectives

Different approaches to internalisation. Many executives noted that some funds are building internal investment capability, while others are choosing not to, citing complexity, cost and governance considerations.
Private markets remain important, with greater focus on discipline. Executives highlighted increasing attention to valuation, liquidity and capacity constraints.
Digitisation is universal, with mixed outcomes. Nearly all executives referenced ongoing investment, with some noting challenges in integration and translating that investment into tangible improvements.
External factors are shaping decisions more directly. Several executives highlighted the influence of decarbonisation and increasing external scrutiny on investment choices, stakeholder expectations and risk considerations.
‘The responsibility and scope of what funds need to do… it would be enough to keep everyone occupied forever… and then you’ve got this broader purpose… it’s a much wider complexity.’

Emerging signals and tensions

Execution capacity as a constraint. Some executives questioned whether organisations can effectively manage multiple transformation initiatives at once.
Internationalisation not always delivering clear benefit. A small number noted that offshore expansion could add cost and complexity without clear incremental value.
Collaboration as an alternative to internal build. Some executives pointed to co-investment and partnerships as ways to access capabilities without full internalisation.

What this might mean for you

If transformations expand capability but also increase execution demands, the key question becomes: Which initiatives can be delivered well, given the organisation’s capacity and operating model?

This may require:

prioritising a smaller number of high-impact initiatives;
being realistic about what can be executed effectively;
making clear choices about where to build, partner or not participate.

Conclusion

The interviews point to an industry where:

member decisions at key moments, particularly approaching retirement, are becoming more consequential;
scale remains valuable, but its benefits are uneven and context-dependent;
cost reflects competing priorities across capability, service and efficiency;
structural transformations are expanding capability while increasing execution demands.

This is not a shift from one model of competition to another, but a change in emphasis within an established system. Performance, brand and distribution have long shaped outcomes; what is changing is:

the importance of supporting member decisions at critical points;
the extent to which scale delivers consistent benefits across the organisation.

In this context, advantage will be determined by:

how effectively funds support member decisions where it matters most;
how deliberately they apply scale to areas where it adds value;
how clearly they manage cost and investment trade-offs;
how deliberately they choose which structural changes to pursue, and which not to.

The challenge is not identifying the direction of travel, but making clear, practical choices within it.

About Inside Super

The focus of Inside Super is on superannuation industry strategy, structure, scale economies, competition and growth – topics central to the work Right Lane has been doing for more than 25 years. We won’t be building the content from scratch. We’ve been writing about forces at work in the industry for 13 years in our annual, subscriber-only Forces at Work in Super Report.

In each issue, I choose a chart or two from the back issues of the Report (there’s ~1,100 pages to draw from!), and connect them up with something that’s happening right now in, for example, the competitive arena or the policy discourse. I also make some observations and suggest some questions you and your team should contemplate.

With the 2025 Forces at Work Report having been recently released, we are in presentation mode. If you are wondering whether your organisation is a subscriber, and if so whether you can get a copy, or if you would like us to present some of the Report findings to your team, please let me know.

I plan on writing editions of Inside Super semi frequently. If you do not wish to receive these updates, please let me know via return email and I will take you off the list.