Two sophisticated, differently built retirement systems.
Chile's AFPs and Australia's superannuation funds were both built to solve the same problem — funding retirement — but with very different architecture, governance and history. We don't ask which system is better. We ask what each can learn from the other.
AFPs
- Individually capitalised accounts
- Competing private fund administrators
- Multi-fund choice by risk profile
- Ongoing structural reform debate
Superannuation
- Employer-mandated contributions
- Industry, retail & corporate funds
- Default (MySuper) investment options
- Consolidation into larger funds
Where the comparison gets useful
These are the questions that recur across our Chile–Australia work — not a menu, but the terrain we know best.
AFPs vs superannuation
How each structure allocates risk, choice and responsibility between the member and the system.
Pension reform
What proposed reforms actually change for members, managers and the market around them.
Default investment options
How default design shapes outcomes for the large share of members who never actively choose.
Investment governance
How each system holds fund decision-makers accountable, and to whom.
Institutional asset allocation
How local structure and regulation shape where large pools of capital end up invested.
Manager selection
How funds choose, monitor and replace the managers who invest on members' behalf.
Fees & competition
How competitive pressure — or its absence — shows up in what members actually pay.
Member outcomes
What "good outcomes" mean differently across two systems with different defaults.
Behavioural incentives
How the incentives built into each system shape the choices institutions and members make.
Retirement income
How each system converts a lump sum or balance into income that lasts.
Sustainability & investment
How ESG expectations are being built into institutional mandates in each market.
Regulation
How regulatory design in one market offers a working (or cautionary) reference for the other.