[Hong Kong, March 18, 2025] GUM released the February 2025 MPF Market Analysis Report. As of February 28, the total assets of the MPF market increased by 2.7% to HKD 1.35 trillion. In terms of market share, Manulife leads with 27.7%, followed by HSBC at 17.9% and Sun Life at 11.0%, continuing in the second and third positions respectively. Together with AIA at 9.1% and BOC-Prudential at 7.5% in fourth and fifth places, the top five providers collectively hold over 73.2% of the MPF market.
As of end of February, HSBC has experienced the largest increase in market share, rising by 0.10%, primarily driven by investment returns in 2025 YTD. The largest decline in market share was recorded by Principal, which fell by 0.09%, impacted by both net fund switching out and investment returns. [See Table 1 for details.]
Table 1: 2025YTD Market Share Charge of MPF Providers (Top 10)
| 2025 YTD Change in Market Shares | |||||
| Market Share Rank | Provider | Market Shares | Due to Net Switching | Due to Investment Return | Total change |
| 1 | Manulife | 27.7% | 0.01% | -0.07% | -0.06% |
| 2 | HSBC | 17.9% | 0.01% | 0.09% | 0.10% |
| 3 | Sun Life | 11.0% | 0.03% | -0.01% | 0.02% |
| 4 | AIA | 9.1% | 0.02% | -0.04% | -0.02% |
| 5 | BOC-Prud | 7.5% | 0.01% | 0.04% | 0.05% |
| 6 | BCT | 7.1% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| 7 | Hang Seng | 5.8% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| 8 | Principal | 5.1% | -0.06% | -0.03% | -0.09% |
| 9 | Fidelity | 4.3% | -0.01% | -0.03% | -0.04% |
| 10 | BEA | 2.5% | -0.01% | -0.02% | -0.03% |
In February, net fund net switching surged significantly, with a clear trend of capital flowing toward safer assets. Due to the erratic changes in U.S. tariff policies and weak consumer data, investors shifted away from higher-valuation U.S. equity funds. Although the Chinese and Hong Kong stock markets saw an upswing driven by the DeepSeek craze, the strong rally instead made investors cautious, resulting in Hong Kong equity funds still recording a net fund outflow for the month. Amid numerous uncertainties, investors generally opted for conservative funds and guaranteed funds to seek stability. [See Table 2 for details.]
Table 2：Est. Net Fund Switching in Major Asset Categories over the past three months (HK$B)
Figures may not sum up to the total due to rounding
In February 2025, the top five asset classes with the highest net fund outflows, in order, were: “Hong Kong Equity Funds,” “Hong Kong Equity Funds (Index Tracking),” “United States Equity Fund,” “Greater China Equity Funds,” and “Mixed Asset Funds (>80-100% Equity).” This indicates a noticeable outflow of capital from equity-heavy asset classes. [See Table 3 for details]
In February 2025, the top five asset classes with the highest net fund inflows, in order, were: “MPF Conservative Funds,” “Guaranteed Funds,” “DIS Core Accumulation Fund,” ” DIS Age 65 Plus Fund,” and “European Equity Funds.” The EU’s announcement of a “rearmament” plan to address the Russia-Ukraine war and the pressure from reduced U.S. military aid boosted market expectations for European economic growth. As a result, the relatively undervalued European Equity Funds recorded the highest net inflow among equity funds in February. [See Table 4 for details.]
GUM’s Strategy and Investment Director, Martin Wan, pointed out, “In February, risk aversion intensified, with HKD 6.5 billion in assets shifting to low-risk options. Conservative funds and guaranteed funds absorbed HKD 4.9 billion and HKD 1.2 billion, respectively. From a capital parking perspective, members should note that some guaranteed funds come with specific conditions to realize their guarantees. Additionally, despite a strong performance by Hong Kong stocks in February, a total of HKD 5 billion still switched out from Hong Kong equity funds.”
Table 3: Top Five Asset Types for Net Fund Outflows for the February 2025 and 2025 YTD (in Million HKD)
| Rank | Asset Class | Feb 2025 | Asset Class | 2025 YTD |
| 1 | Hong Kong Equity Fund | (HK$3,000) | Hong Kong Equity Fund | (HK$3,269) |
| 2 | Hong Kong Equity Fund (Index Tracking) | (HK$1,984) | Hong Kong Equity Fund (Index Tracking) | (HK$2,211) |
| 3 | United States Equity Fund | (HK$1,032) | Mixed Asset Fund – (>80-100% Equity) | (HK$1,097) |
| 4 | Greater China Equity Fund | (HK$755) | Greater China Equity Fund | (HK$937) |
| 5 | Mixed Asset Fund – (>80-100% Equity) | (HK$571) | Mixed Asset Fund – (>60-80% Equity) | (HK$878) |
Table 4: Top Five Asset Types for Net Fund inflows for the February 2025 and 2025 YTD (in Million HKD)
| Rank | Asset Class | Feb 2025 | Asset Class | 2025 YTD |
| 1 | MPF Conservative Fund | HK$4,920 | MPF Conservative Fund | HK$5,721 |
| 2 | Guaranteed Fund | HK$1,263 | DIS Core Accumulation Fund | HK$1,476 |
| 3 | DIS Core Accumulation Fund | HK$868 | Guaranteed Fund | HK$1,193 |
| 4 | DIS Age 65 Plus Fund | HK$556 | United States Equity Fund | HK$806 |
| 5 | European Equity Fund | HK$365 | DIS Age 65 Plus Fund | HK$593 |
－ The End －
About GUM
GUM is a boutique consulting firm that provides solutions to corporate on MPF and employee benefits. We focus on people and that is why we put “U” in the very core of our brand “GUM”. Our priorities are always meeting the needs of our corporate clients and their employees, our strategic partners as well as all MPF members of Hong Kong. With our vast market experience and expert teams around actuarial, investment and employee communication, GUM leads the market to innovate, walking hand in hand with our clients to go faster and further.
Media Enquiries, please contact:
GUM Miss Carmen Tang / Miss Karen Siu
Phone: (852) 9126-9332/ (852) 6011-5603
Email: carmentang@gumhk.com / karensiu@gumhk.com
Website: www.gumhk.com
This document provided the information on an “AS IS” basis. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any of the information contained in this document. Some information contained in this document contains forward-looking statements. The words “believe”, “expect” and similar expressions are also intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts. Rather, these forward-looking statements are based on the current beliefs, assumptions, expectations, estimates, and projections of our management. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, some of which are beyond our control and are difficult to predict. Consequently, actual results could differ materially from those expressed, implied or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. Reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements.