根据“越大越好”的理论，管理资产越多的基金，其管理费用和管理费用将相应减少。这对于提高竞争回报的价值，并在整个市场平台上提供竞争优势，发挥着至关重要的作用。这个终点的关键推理是，当考虑规模时，市场条件将成为一个关键的阈值。与这个特定的门槛相比，任何规模较小的基金都将缺乏效率，而最终会屈服于更高效、更大的竞争(Bloom, 2014)。这要么导致为恢复规模经济而吸收更多的资金，要么导致对绿色牧场表现出兴趣的成员流失。这是因为规模较大的基金将对每个成员收取更低的费用。养老行业的竞争类型是这样的，它为充分满足整个行业客户的需求提供了保证(Powell et al.， 2013)。这最终会以不同形式的战略合并方式出现在小型基金之间，或大型基金为宣传其可观的效率而进行的尝试，并在未来吸引每一个小型基金的成员。
Under the scope of this article, the bigger is better in the superannuation industry of Australia. The theory is further expanded that funds consisting of management with more number of assets will be gaining significant benefits out of the economies of scale. The key reason is that the costs to run a fund of superannuation are fixed largely without any significantly obvious changes. This depicts that funds having management with more assets will have less proportional spending on overheads and administration. This will be crucial for them in making increased competitive return, while supposedly providing a competitive edge across the market platform. In the superannuation industry, operating costs provide a wider reflection of the needs of the fund members based on transaction throughout several services that include record keeping systems, back office processing and customer interface. Most significant of all, external parties should be universally handling certain services while others move across a spectrum of external third-party and in-house providers. Having equal significance, while majority of the costs have positive relations with the membership of fund, there lies propensity for declining the average size of account. The long term objective of cost has to be positioned for the production of desired output in context with cost minimization or lowest possible cost.
According to the theory of “bigger is better”, funds having more number of assets under the possession of management will be spending less on overheads and administration proportionately. This plays a crucial role for enhancing the value of competitive returns and supposedly providing a competitive edge across the market platform. The key reasoning of this end point is that the conditions of a market will turn out to be a crucial threshold when considering size. Any funds smaller in comparison of that specific threshold will lack efficiency, while succumbing eventually towards the more efficient and larger competition (Bloom, 2014). This either results in the absorption of a larger fund for the purpose of restoring the economies of scale or results in the loss of members showing interest in green pastures. This is because the bigger funds will be charging lower value of fees for every member. The type of competition in the superannuation industry is such that it provides assurance for adequately serving the demands and needs of the customers across the industry (Powell et al., 2013). This ends up taking different forms of strategic mergers across small size funds or attempts which are put in by the large funds for advertising the considerable efficiency and further ahead luring away each and every member of the small size funds.