In an article published in the latest Consumer magazine only 11 super schemes out of a universe of nearly 200 passed muster.

"We've checked out nearly 200 super schemes available to the public," Consumer says. "To our enormous disappointment very few super schemes passed our test. Of these none was ideal."

A similar report on all other managed funds (unit trusts, group investment funds and insurance bonds) due out next month paints a similar picture. In that study of several hundred funds only 20 are rated any good.

The Consumer "test" is based on running IPAC's database through a series of filters. The eight criteria which have been used to assess funds includes:
Access - funds have to be publicly available
Initial investment - maximum $2000
Size - $10 million minimum
Up-front fees - 3.5 per cent considered reasonable
On-going fees - funds with policyholder fees or two tier structures excluded
Track record - Minimum three years
Performance - Funds had to have either a four or a five star IPAC rating
Continuity - Senior investment management had to be with the fund for at least two years.

Consumer says the main reasons for failure include poor investment performance, too small and high turnover.

It says these factors point to the need for further rationalisation in the funds management industry.

The only managers which had funds that passed Consumers' test were: AMP (2), ANZ (4), ASB Bank (1), BNZ (2), BT (1), New Zealand Funds (1).