On this page:
The Multi-Manager global equity strategy has four underlying managers WCM Investment Management, Royal London Asset Management, Amova Asset Management Europe Ltd and JP Morgan Asset Management. These managers select companies from around the world covering a diverse range of regions and sectors. The appointed global managers are responsible for the investment management of the assets. The multi-manager global equity strategy managed by Yarra Capital Management.
This fund combines four underlying managers WCM Investment Management, Royal London Asset Management, Amova Asset Management Europe Ltd and JP Morgan Asset Management. Each manager selects companies from around the world covering a diverse range of regions and sectors based on their own investment process. The result is a portfolio that holds around 150-170 companies. The multi-manager global equity strategy is managed by Yarra Capital Management.
Risk Indicator (volatility)
Target Asset Allocation
This number indicates the relative 'risk' level of this fund based on the types of assets it is invested in, ranging from level 1 (least risky) to 7 (most risky).
| Risk category | Description of volatility |
| 1 | Very low |
| 2 | Low |
| 3 | Medium |
| 4 | Medium to High |
| 5 | High |
| 6 | Very high |
| 7 | Extremely high |
The risk indicators are calculated using returns of the funds, the returns of the fund’s market index or a combination of both, for the previous five years. Index returns or a mix are used if the fund has existed for less than five years. All Managers are required to use the same methodology so you can compare the risk of different funds if you are researching more than one manager.
| One month | Three months | One year | Three years (p.a) | Five years (p.a) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fund performance1 | 1.20% | 6.19% | 12.99% | 17.12% | 12.09% |
| Appropriate Market Index (AMI)2 | 1.95% | 8.11% | 14.79% | 15.91% | 10.96% |
AMI (appropriate market index) is a theoretical portfolio with similar underlying assets as the fund. This allows investors to see a comparison of how the value of those assets have changed in the market relative to the fund.
| Security Name | Percentage |
|---|---|
| JPM Global Select Equity X Acc USD | 31.79% |
| Microsoft Corp | 4.20% |
| Amazon Com Inc | 3.88% |
| Nvidia Corp | 3.47% |
| Applovin Corp | 1.87% |
| Visa Inc - A | 1.68% |
| 3I Group Plc | 1.40% |
| Broadcom Corp Com | 1.38% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing USD | 1.30% |
| Alphabet Inc Cap Stk Usd0.001 Cl A | 1.27% |
Commentary
As of 31 August 2025
Fund Commentary
It was a challenging month for the strategy, with all four managers underperforming the benchmark. The fund was adversely impacted by a combination of style headwinds and some disappointing company results; and there wasn’t one single issue explaining the underperformance, with the key detractors spread across various sectors. The key detractors from performance were predominantly mega cap in nature (companies with a market capitalization exceeding USD 1 trillion) – among this group were underweight exposures to outperforming names such as Apple, Alphabet and Tesla, as well as overweight exposures to underperforming names such as Microsoft and Amazon.com. The overall Fund has been underweight Apple, Alphabet and Tesla for the last few yers which has added significant value as these names have underperformed the other memebrs of the so-called “Magnificent 7”. While the underperformance of Royal London and JP Morgan was less severe, their key detractors were also mostly mega cap in nature. WCM’s key detractors were overweights to Siemens Energy and Vertex Pharmaceuticals which both performed poorly. At the individual security level, the fund benefitted most from overweight exposures to two technology names held by WCM (AppLovin and Sea Limited), two consumer names (Sony Group and Lithia Motors) and a healthcare name (HCA Healthcare). For the Amova-Europe Future Quality Strategy, Coca-cola Europacific Partners and TransDigm Group were two names that were sold off after delivering softer than expected earnings, while Oracle also underperformed after very strong period of gains in the months prior.