“but I don't think you can expect sustained above-average...

“but I don't think you can expect sustained above-average performance with so many underlying fund managers.”.     On the contrary, each fund  manager has presumably been chosen for their expertise in a particular area.  The number of fund managers is irrelevant to the total sum as long as they produce and contribute to the overall result.  Having specialist fund managers also abrogates the main manager (Wilson) from needing so many specialist managers in so many fields and investment strategies and allows them to concentrate on their special area.    I am looking at FGX for their dividend yield and also because of a free MF “blurb” about 3 shares the writer would hold forever.
i agree however on your point about the % of cash and asset allocation to each manager, but this is also important when making personal investment decisions regarding asset allocation involving equities, cash and property.... in terms of performance ?  I think almost everything is going thru a rough patch at the moment and probably will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I don’t think there is anything on Australia’s investment horizon (in general rather than company specific) that is going to shoot the lights out. I think we better get used to just bumping along the bottom and getting a return which HAS to be better than the cash rate, whilst protecting our capital. I have more homework to do on FGX, but it’s an option.......