Average MPF gain per person in H1 is $18,500, with a 126% difference in returns between the best and worst funds.

Despite a 1.45% loss in June, MPF returned 7.81% in the second quarter of 2026, lifting the first-half return to 5.67%. According to MPF Ratings estimates, this corresponds to an average profit of HK$18,500 per member.

Meanwhile, according to the latest statistics from MPFGo, among 397 comparable MPF constituent funds in Hong Kong (excluding money market funds and guaranteed funds), the best-performing fund recorded a six-month return of 111.41%, while the worst-performing fund fell 14.65%. The top-to-bottom return gap reached 126.06 percentage points, creating a divergence record that is rare in the MPF market in recent years.

This shows that even under the same MPF system, different markets, different industries, and different asset allocations can produce drastically different investment outcomes within just half a year.

Table: MPF Fund Category Returns

China-Hong Kong stocks are the only stock fund in the red

Based on MPF Ratings data, the “Hong Kong and China Equity Funds” category plunged 5.73% in June and dropped 0.98% over the first half. Not only was it the worst-performing category in June, it was also the only stock fund category in the red over the first half.

The “Asia Equity Funds” category led the way. Although it fell 1.17% in June, it rose by nearly 28% over the first half. The “Japan Equity Funds” and “Global Equity Funds” also saw double-digit gains over the first half.

MPF Ratings Chairman Francis Chung pointed out that the “U.S. Equity Funds” and “Hong Kong and China Equity Funds” are historically the most popular and largest stock asset classes under MPF, but they were also among the worst-performing categories in June, affecting their overall contribution to MPF’s year-to-date total investment returns. He believes this highlights the importance of long-term investing and diversification, further confirming that the Low-fee Default Investment Strategy fund mandated by the MPFA remains a high-quality option worth considering for MPF members.

MPF first-half top-to-bottom return gap reaches 126%

According to MPFGo data, the top 10 best-performing funds in the first half of this year come almost entirely from the Asia Equity and Asia Pacific Equity categories. The top-ranked “Haitong Korea Fund – T Class” delivered a six-month return as high as 111.41%. The second-place “Haitong Asia Pacific Fund – T Class” also returned 85.43%. The third-place “BEA (MPF) Asia Equity Fund” posted a six-month return of 53.74%.

A difference of HK$1.26 million per HK$1 million in assets

As shown in the chart above, the best fund recorded a 111.41% return, while the worst-performing fund fell 14.65%, for a gap of up to 126.06 percentage points. Put another way, if two MPF members both held HK$1 million in retirement assets at the start of the year, with one holding the best-performing fund and the other holding the worst-performing fund in the first half, then after six months, the theoretical difference in their mark-to-market account assets could exceed HK$1.26 million.

MPFGo noted that the performance of funds under the same trustee can also differ significantly. For example, some trustees’ Asia equity funds recorded increases of more than 50% over the first half, while funds under the same trustee tracking the Hong Kong or China market recorded double-digit declines. This once again reflects that what truly affects retirement investment outcomes is often not the trustee brand, but the asset allocation, investment markets, and industry distribution behind the fund.

Fund names may not reflect investment risk

The first half of this year also once again reminded investors that a fund’s name may not be enough to reflect the fund’s true investment risk. Taking “Asia Equity Funds” as an example, although many funds have similar names, their portfolio weights, country allocations, and industry distributions can be very different. Likewise, while index-tracking funds have lower costs, their returns are highly dependent on the performance of the underlying market itself.

Therefore, in addition to paying attention to fund rankings, investors should also understand which markets, which companies, and which industries the fund actually invests in.