Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

[Junior]

As a member of the Financial Planning industry for 10 years now, I'm disgusted at the watering down of FOFA. The big 4 banks control this country, and this government has ensured that we will continue to see Storm Financial, Timbercorp, Great Southern etc. regularly going forward. These collapses come at a huge cost to the taxpayer and devastate 1000s of families.

Something to consider re MIS, more than $1 billion was invested in Timbercorp schemes alone....as these schemes only ever made losses, this amount was claimed as a deduction against individuals income, with the expectation that at some point these schemes would be profitable and the earnings taxed. The end result is that these were never profitable, and the only parties to extract profits were the directors of Timbercorp, accountants, financial planners and then solicitors/liquidators. Wealth transferred to these groups from the lower, middle class and taxpayers.

In my opinion the minimum education standard to become an FP is still the biggest issue. You can be qualified and giving advice after completing a short course which your average 15 year old would be able to breeze through. Should be FP specific bachelors degree at a minimum, with the CFP course compulsory if you have completed a non-business degree.

Sorry to get off-topic!

 

[FxTrader]

Something to consider re MIS, more than $1 billion was invested in Timbercorp schemes alone....as these schemes only ever made losses, this amount was claimed as a deduction against individuals income, with the expectation that at some point these schemes would be profitable and the earnings taxed. The end result is that these were never profitable, and the only parties to extract profits were the directors of Timbercorp, accountants, financial planners and then solicitors/liquidators. Wealth transferred to these groups from the lower, middle class and taxpayers.

Additional benefactors of the Timbercorp collapse included the companies that bought the distressed assets. Some of the ex-directors actually went as far as to try and seize the timber assets of investors via a land holding company they controlled. I believe the government was culpable as well via tax rules that allowed loan deductions to be brought forward, this incentivised investment in these schemes for tax minimization purposes. The pain has not ended for those who refused to pay back loans to Timbercorp Finance hoping for their loans to be voided by court action.

 

[Judd]

Additional benefactors of the Timbercorp collapse included the companies that bought the distressed assets. Some of the ex-directors actually went as far as to try and seize the timber assets of investors via a land holding company they controlled. I believe the government was culpable as well via tax rules that allowed loan deductions to be brought forward, this incentivised investment in these schemes for tax minimization purposes. The pain has not ended for those who refused to pay back loans to Timbercorp Finance hoping for their loans to be voided by court action.

Maybe but try telling the investors at the time it was a bad deal as well as standing in the way of getting a nice tax deduction. You'd have no hope. A lesson I learned years go when a group of work colleagues tried to get me involved in one of those property things where you are flown “free of charge and no obligation” to some place for an inspection. Not in a fit on my part.

One came back after buying five properties and the others had at least two each. All excited and happy chaps about their future wealth.

No so happy about a year later when they discovered after the expiry of the guaranteed rental period that none of the tenants had been paying that rate and it had been subsidised by the developer from the purchase price they had paid plus the properties were worth only about half of what they had contracted to fork out.

I was not Mr Popular when I showed little sympathy for their plight. Probably a case of disliking someone when they have been proven correct and aren't in the same financial stress.

 

[k.smith]

View attachment report.pdf

Tax concessions on super contributions appear to be way ahead of tax concessions on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. If the tax concessions to super were to be reduced, would there really be a dramatic shift to negative gearing etc? It seems to me that super has really been "the ultimate cash cow"...

 

[Judd]

View attachment 58400

Tax concessions on super contributions appear to be way ahead of tax concessions on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. If the tax concessions to super were to be reduced, would there really be a dramatic shift to negative gearing etc? It seems to me that super has really been "the ultimate cash cow"...

Not only for Guvmnt but also for fund managers.

There has of late been a plethora of Listed Investment Companies floated by organisations involved in unlisted funds. The reason in my view? Fees. SMSF's in a number of instances seem to favour LICs as a "one-stop-shop." To capture this - whether by fair means or foul - someone will attempt to extract some of it.

So now we have LICs with management fees ranging between 1% to 1.5% of FUM including cash holdings and gross FUM rather than nett. Plus performance fees up to 20% some which are based on average swap interest rates rather than equities. Long-term that is where rests "the ultimate cash cow" as these managers try and add to the already excessive fee take of $18B pa by taping into the SMSF market.

 

[k.smith]

''......People can't comprehend the concept of superannuation???? Really? You must assume your fellow Australians to be way more dim than most of them are. Are you seriously telling me that you think most people do not understand that they are compulsorily contributing to a scheme which is designed (if the rate is high enough and they participate long enough) to provide them with an income in retirement when, just fancy this, your income from your job actually stops?...........

........ They don't need to have a sophisticated vocabulary to understand the concept of Super .....''

They may not need a sophisticated vocabulary as such, but they need to have a vocabulary which gives them skills to appraise concepts. According to a paper entitled "Literacy and Numeracy Skills and Labour Market Outcomes in Australia'' it would appear some 44% have some difficulties.

View attachment literacy-numeracy-skills.pdf

''....Below level 1 (0 to < 176 points)
• Tasks at this level require the respondent to read brief texts to locate a single piece of specific information. • There is seldom any competing information in the text and the requested information is identical in form to information in the question. • Only basic vocabulary knowledge is required, and the reader is not required to understand the structure of sentences or paragraphs. • Tasks do not make use of any features specific to digital texts.

Level 1 (176 to < 226 points)
• Tasks at this level require the respondent to read relatively short digital or print texts to locate a single piece of information that is synonymous with the information given in the question. • Some tasks require personal information to be entered onto a document. • Little, if any, competing information is present. • Some tasks require simple cycling through multiple pieces of information. • Knowledge and skill in recognising basic vocabulary, evaluating the meaning of sentences, and reading of paragraph text is expected.

Level 2 (226 to < 276 points)
• Tasks at this level require respondents to make matches between the text (which may be digital or printed) and information, and may require paraphrasing or low-level inferences. • Some competing pieces of information may be present and may require the respondent to: - cycle through or integrate two or more pieces of information - compare and contrast or reason about information requested in the question, or - navigate within digital texts to access-and-identify information from various parts of a document.
...''

Worthwhile article by Dr Bill Garner, Research Associate at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne has just come online
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...-opportunity-is-a-big-con-20140617-zsa6d.html

''...But we all know people don't start from the same place financially, educationally, in terms of health, or culturally. The only way we might get people even near such a starting line is by redistribution of wealth, but redistribution on a sufficient scale is labelled by Hockey as "unfair" to those who have accumulated it.

When the debate shifts from equality to inequality, the role of intuitive popular understanding changes sides: this time it is on the side of those who believe that the degree of inequality is both unfair and increasing. This appears to be not only the view of the majority of people in Australia, but of the majority of people in the world.

The history of welfare in Australia has always been a changeable mix of private and public provision, but the recent enthusiasm by neo-liberal governments for a greater reliance on charity (and personal responsibility) is a remarkable turn back to the darkest days of the 19th century and the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. Charity was then a creator and marker of class division: the "givers" were morally superior and the "takers" were morally inferior. Conservatives thought it instrumentally useful that the takers of charity should feel shame. Apparently they still do....''

 

[Julia]

As a member of the Financial Planning industry for 10 years now, I'm disgusted at the watering down of FOFA. The big 4 banks control this country, and this government has ensured that we will continue to see Storm Financial, Timbercorp, Great Southern etc. regularly going forward. These collapses come at a huge cost to the taxpayer and devastate 1000s of families.

In my opinion the minimum education standard to become an FP is still the biggest issue. You can be qualified and giving advice after completing a short course which your average 15 year old would be able to breeze through. Should be FP specific bachelors degree at a minimum, with the CFP course compulsory if you have completed a non-business degree.

Sorry to get off-topic!

Not off topic at all, Junior. The competence of financial planners is central to the discussion. If the people who lack the interest or the skills to manage their own Super feel they can't trust a planner to give advice in their best interest, that's an awful comment on the industry.

Could you, without of course compromising anyone's confidentiality, give us an idea of the sort of people who approach you for advice, i.e. do most of them have enough financial literacy to easily understand what you explain in terms of their options?

I'd have thought people with a substantial amount to invest would have a pretty good idea, given they've acquired that substantial amount in the first place. But one investor in Storm who had, I think, well over $1m, still succumbed to Storm's persuasions.

On the government's changes to reforms, they're saying commissions will be banned, but in the next breath someone points out that there is nothing to stop the banks, for example, paying 'incentives' to such as tellers who recommend customers to the bank's financial planning branch.
Perhaps trailing commissions won't happen any more, but I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the big banks will find ways round the regulations.

Mr Cormann is saying that the reason the rule that the planner must act in the best interests of the client is unnecessary is that this already exists in the Corporations Act. Really? Isn't the debacle of Storm and other similar fleecing schemes testimony to the inadequacy of anything in the Corporations Act?

Then again, I suppose it's just not possible to legislate completely for gullibility. Or greed.
Just seems counter-intuitive to reduce what might be safeguards for what reason?
One can only assume to keep the big banks on side.

Maybe but try telling the investors at the time it was a bad deal as well as standing in the way of getting a nice tax deduction. You'd have no hope. A lesson I learned years go when a group of work colleagues tried to get me involved in one of those property things where you are flown “free of charge and no obligation” to some place for an inspection. Not in a fit on my part.

One came back after buying five properties and the others had at least two each. All excited and happy chaps about their future wealth.

No so happy about a year later when they discovered after the expiry of the guaranteed rental period that none of the tenants had been paying that rate and it had been subsidised by the developer from the purchase price they had paid plus the properties were worth only about half of what they had contracted to fork out.

Exactly what I fear is going to happen to a friend of mine who - in response to a cold phone call out of the blue - went to a 'wealth creation seminar' and as a result bought a residential house off the plan 20 kms from Gladstone. No rental guarantee, nothing. Just a lot of hype from the salesman. He has borrowed the entire amount, his present house and some of his Super as collateral. That was about a year ago. Building has still not started.

And, for k.smith, he's a teacher of English and History for 30 years. Extremely literate, extensive vocabulary.
Ain't no guarantee of avoiding being suckered.

 

[sydboy007]

Not only for Guvmnt but also for fund managers.

There has of late been a plethora of Listed Investment Companies floated by organisations involved in unlisted funds. The reason in my view? Fees. SMSF's in a number of instances seem to favour LICs as a "one-stop-shop." To capture this - whether by fair means or foul - someone will attempt to extract some of it.

So now we have LICs with management fees ranging between 1% to 1.5% of FUM including cash holdings and gross FUM rather than nett. Plus performance fees up to 20% some which are based on average swap interest rates rather than equities. Long-term that is where rests "the ultimate cash cow" as these managers try and add to the already excessive fee take of $18B pa by taping into the SMSF market.

I've often been shocked when looking at LICs or managed investments as to the kind of fees they charge. The fact you can quite often get pretty much the same investment outcome using ETFs seems to escape a lot of people. Also the lack of understanding as to how much an effect of an extra 1% in fees over an extended period of time can have on the eventual total return.

There really needs to be an addition to the current school curriculum, either within maths or as a separate area of study, that gives a decent level of financial and economic understanding by the time you finish high school. I also feel there needs to be some sort of legislation brought into play where the FUM model is restricted. It's Ok to allow access for those with small balances, but after a certain point it should become a fixed cost. I've yet to see anyone provide a plausible reason why someone with 500K should pay 5 times as much as someone with 100K in a fund. Our super industry shouldn't be costing us roughly $23B a year to run. The fact our major political parties are pretty much beholden to the FIRE sector means this kind of change is as likely as my herd of flying pigs taking wing.

They may not need a sophisticated vocabulary as such, but they need to have a vocabulary which gives them skills to appraise concepts. According to a paper entitled "Literacy and Numeracy Skills and Labour Market Outcomes in Australia'' it would appear some 44% have some difficulties.

The history of welfare in Australia has always been a changeable mix of private and public provision, but the recent enthusiasm by neo-liberal governments for a greater reliance on charity (and personal responsibility) is a remarkable turn back to the darkest days of the 19th century and the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. Charity was then a creator and marker of class division: the "givers" were morally superior and the "takers" were morally inferior. Conservatives thought it instrumentally useful that the takers of charity should feel shame. Apparently they still do....''

I'm continually surprised by the lack of basic financial knowledge with the people I work with. The majority would have some form of tertiary education, yet have difficulty in grasping what franked dividends are and that it's the total (grossed) up value of the income you receive that's important. It's gotten to the point where I've made a few word documents explaining the basics on a few things since I'm now not only the got to guy for travel advice but questions about the share market and basic financial concepts. Trying to get people to understand risk can be tricky.

I'm very concerned with the changes that's occurring within Australia, especially in education. With the way funding to public schools is deteriorating against the private sector, we're facing the stratification of potential pretty much from the age of 5. If you don't have the resources to either live near a good public school or afford a private school, then you're children are pretty much behind the 8 ball in terms of reaching their potential. Not to say some wont, but it's less likely.

 

[Julia]

There really needs to be an addition to the current school curriculum, either within maths or as a separate area of study, that gives a decent level of financial and economic understanding by the time you finish high school.

First you need to find the teachers who can impart this to students. Agree, however, it would be a great addition to the curriculum.
The government is apparently re-introducing the learning of Latin into schools. It's an interesting language but you'd like to think some financial instruction would be a bit more relevant.

I also feel there needs to be some sort of legislation brought into play where the FUM model is restricted.

Is % of FUM how most public super funds operate? No choice for consumers?

I'm continually surprised by the lack of basic financial knowledge with the people I work with. The majority would have some form of tertiary education, yet have difficulty in grasping what franked dividends are and that it's the total (grossed) up value of the income you receive that's important.

I'm glad to know it's not just my social circle.

It's gotten to the point where I've made a few word documents explaining the basics on a few things since I'm now not only the go to guy for travel advice but questions about the share market and basic financial concepts. Trying to get people to understand risk can be tricky.

Syd, you say above that you've done a few word docs to help people understand basics like grossed up yield etc.
In response to a request from an acquaintance who was thinking of buying some shares I did likewise. Just explaining in very simple terms dividends, franking, that as she didn't pay tax she would receive the franking credit in cash, etc. She (who has a PhD) declared it much too hard to understand, deduced that was because she wasn't an economist, and went out and spent over $300 on books on economics!

And then, on providing information to others, you have this realistic comment from Judd:

A lesson I learned years go when a group of work colleagues tried to get me involved in one of those property things where you are flown “free of charge and no obligation” to some place for an inspection. Not in a fit on my part.

One came back after buying five properties and the others had at least two each. All excited and happy chaps about their future wealth.

No so happy about a year later when they discovered after the expiry of the guaranteed rental period that none of the tenants had been paying that rate and it had been subsidised by the developer from the purchase price they had paid plus the properties were worth only about half of what they had contracted to fork out.

I was not Mr Popular when I showed little sympathy for their plight. Probably a case of disliking someone when they have been proven correct and aren't in the same financial stress.

This raises the question of whether it actually makes sense to express any opinion at all when a friend or colleague is clearly about to make a financial mistake because of inexperience. If I were making a decision about something in which I'd had minimal experience, I'd really appreciate advice, would go looking for it, but obviously it can be seen as interference when someone is actually only looking for endorsement of what they plan.

 

[Judd]

I've often been shocked when looking at LICs or managed investments as to the kind of fees they charge. The fact you can quite often get pretty much the same investment outcome using ETFs seems to escape a lot of people. Also the lack of understanding as to how much an effect of an extra 1% in fees over an extended period of time can have on the eventual total return.................

I'm just as shocked with some EFT's where the activities are not completely transparent. Take IOO as an example. Few would know that its holdings, and those of its stalemates, are possibly available for short selling. To discover that, investors would also need to refer to the US Prospectus which governs its listing on the ASX. Not saying the activity is evil or anything like that but investors should be clearly informed of the arrangement and I wonder if they are. I could be wrong of course since it is quite a while since I investigated this brand and things may have changed in the meantime.

Many, many aspects should be tidied up for the public but I suspect it will not happen. Gad, I am such a cynic sometimes.

 

[Judd]

.............

Syd, you say above that you've done a few word docs to help people understand basics like grossed up yield etc.
In response to a request from an acquaintance who was thinking of buying some shares I did likewise. Just explaining in very simple terms dividends, franking, that as she didn't pay tax she would receive the franking credit in cash, etc. She (who has a PhD) declared it much too hard to understand, deduced that was because she wasn't an economist, and went out and spent over $300 on books on economics!

I know I shouldn't laugh at the lady but I couldn't help doing so. That is very funny in a dark sort of way.

 

[sydboy007]

Is % of FUM how most public super funds operate? No choice for consumers?


I'm glad to know it's not just my social circle.

Syd, you say above that you've done a few word docs to help people understand basics like grossed up yield etc.
In response to a request from an acquaintance who was thinking of buying some shares I did likewise. Just explaining in very simple terms dividends, franking, that as she didn't pay tax she would receive the franking credit in cash, etc. She (who has a PhD) declared it much too hard to understand, deduced that was because she wasn't an economist, and went out and spent over $300 on books on economics!

And then, on providing information to others, you have this realistic comment from Judd:


This raises the question of whether it actually makes sense to express any opinion at all when a friend or colleague is clearly about to make a financial mistake because of inexperience. If I were making a decision about something in which I'd had minimal experience, I'd really appreciate advice, would go looking for it, but obviously it can be seen as interference when someone is actually only looking for endorsement of what they plan.

Pretty much every retail and industry super fund charges fees based on FUM.

While they might directly charge various account keeping fees as a fixed $ amount, the investment choices are based on a % of FUM.

For example, Australian super have you invested in the default "balanced" fund, will charge you $1.50 per week paid from your account PLUS 0.66% ($66M for each $1B) a year of your account balance for investment management for the year ended 30 June 2013. The investment choice fees range from 0.08% (cash) pa to 1.06% pa. That kind of fee structure is pretty much the norm within the industry. Basically only SMSFs allow you to get a relatively fixed cost base, depending on your investment choice. Considering the retail and industry funds charged $18B on roughly $1.2T of assets means they're getting a 1.5% cut. Not a bad lurk. I know the compliance costs have to come out of it, but the economies of scale should allow them to do it pretty cheaply. the fact half of them couldn't get ready for the super stream system next financial year after havign 3 years says a lot about the lack of efficiency in the sector. Most roll overs are still handled by cheque.

I suppose I try not to give advice. I just ask people to do some simple calculations and ask them if they think that kind of return is good or bad, and are they thinking of alternative investments. The easiest argument I make for someone with practically no clue to investing is for them to compare investing in their mortgage which gives them a guaranteed after tax return of X%. On a 5% mortgage rate that would be about 8.13% pre tax. I just ask how much more than that would they require before they felt comfortable they were being rewarded for the extra risk, especially when they don't know what their return will be. It's an easy introduction to risk rewards. Fortunately so far I've been met with thanks for the simple questions posed.

 

[sydboy007]

I'm just as shocked with some EFT's where the activities are not completely transparent. Take IOO as an example. Few would know that its holdings, and those of its stalemates, are possibly available for short selling. To discover that, investors would also need to refer to the US Prospectus which governs its listing on the ASX. Not saying the activity is evil or anything like that but investors should be clearly informed of the arrangement and I wonder if they are. I could be wrong of course since it is quite a while since I investigated this brand and things may have changed in the meantime.

Many, many aspects should be tidied up for the public but I suspect it will not happen. Gad, I am such a cynic sometimes.

My understanding is some super funds also allow their shares to be used by short sellers. I can understand the lure of the extra income, but not overly confident it's in the best interests of the fund members

 

[Judd]

Possibly the title of this thread should be changed to “Superannuation: Everybody wants your money.”

It is rather bizarre in some ways. Various quarters of the financial industry suggest that SMSF should have a minimum balance of $250k. By implication it means amounts less than that remain with them and so will fees. And it is possible that once there the funds will remain “sticky” money.

Some industries, such as the art one, claim it cannot remain viable without superannuation. So the products are overpriced are they, fellas? Anyway, I understand super was introduced to assist with funding retirement not to support a particular industry.

Potential infrastructure organisations wish to impose investment mandates on super. BrisConnections anyone?

Unlisted fund managers are moving into the listed space and bring along with them the unlisted fee structures. Bemused to see one LIC at end-of-year initially not declare a dividend but the managers were quite happy to take cash in management and performance fees. Don't worry about income, dear shareholders, feel the capital gain while you fund our North Shore weekender.

Spivs are out in force enticing investment in property both commercial and residential, for a fee of course. Look out for another fee feast, litigation, Parliamentary inquiries and more regulation if or when it all goes horribly wrong.

Clarion calls by the media and others on restrictions in the amount which can be invested in super to prevent 0.01% of SMSFs rorting the system. Great, so more regulation which imposes more compliance costs to be spread over all superannuation funds rather than on those who actually caused the perceived problem. However, it will surely make lawyers and other hanger ons happy. No, I am not happy about the activities of the 0.01% either but I'd rather have that then super being hit with increased costs on the basis a fund may, but not necessarily will, indulge in dubious practices.

With all the hungry beasts circling it, superannuation could be in danger of becoming an sick and expensive joke.

Wow, I'm in a real cranky mood today. I may just turn around and reclaim the $5 I gave to the homeless beggar outside the supermarket this morning. After all, he is a parasite and drugo who simply cannot be bothered to get a job.

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/6/23/economy/gruen-urges-reduced-super-fees

Australians spend around $20 billion annually on superannuation fees, which equates to over one per cent of GDP.

“A microeconomic reform that permanently reduced costs across the economy by a few tenths of 1 per cent of GDP would be considered a significant and worthwhile reform,” he said.

“Significant reductions in superannuation fees would have widespread benefits for society as a whole.”

Mr Gruen said while international comparisons are difficult, it is estimated in 2011 Australians’ average superannuation fees were around three times those of the UK.

below charts are sobering reading. we're being legally bilked year after year.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm continually surprised by the lack of basic financial knowledge with the people I work with. The majority would have some form of tertiary education, yet have difficulty in grasping what franked dividends are and that it's the total (grossed) up value of the income you receive that's important. It's gotten to the point where I've made a few word documents explaining the basics on a few things since I'm now not only the got to guy for travel advice but questions about the share market and basic financial concepts. Trying to get people to understand risk can be tricky.
.

I'd say you are probably the go to guy on any subject.

There isn't a subject here ,you aren't expert on, be it fiscal, energy, enviromental,welfare,superannuation,power production and distribution, agricultural development, telecommunications. You name it, you know it.

One thing for sure, you will be fine in your retirement, with your understanding of the scheme of things.

 

[sptrawler]

Another thing Syd, why do you keep using hyperbole terms, to make mileage.

A while back, I, with limited knowledge of accounting posted. On 15th June #932.

Also you say super tax expenditure will cost $x that is a bit of a furphy, it isn't an expenditure, isn't it a non collection.
Expenditure is an outgoing, from memory, like the pension.

Now when I get back from a trip away apparently you're still going on about it, I'm sure Craft knows what he is talking about, even if I don't. On 19th June # 971.

Its notional revenue not raised - not expenditure.

If there was no super pool their would be no revenue at all from Super. Would the savings pool exist in some other fashion? Maybe but probably no where near as large and it would still be undoubtedly sheltered some other way like negative gearing, main residence exemption from Capital Gains, family trusts, corporate structures, tax haven accounts etc.

So a notional revenue forgone figure is riddled with fairy-tale assumptions.

Can't isolate super and try to fix it - the approach has to be comprehensive.

You immediately move away, on both occassions, from answering the subject. One thinks you're debate might not be as it seems, me thinks.

All good intentions, become a rant, when not based on truthfull intent.

 

[Vixs]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/6/23/economy/gruen-urges-reduced-super-fees

Australians spend around $20 billion annually on superannuation fees, which equates to over one per cent of GDP.

“A microeconomic reform that permanently reduced costs across the economy by a few tenths of 1 per cent of GDP would be considered a significant and worthwhile reform,” he said.

“Significant reductions in superannuation fees would have widespread benefits for society as a whole.”

Mr Gruen said while international comparisons are difficult, it is estimated in 2011 Australians’ average superannuation fees were around three times those of the UK.

below charts are sobering reading. we're being legally bilked year after year.

Yeah, because everything else in Australia is so cheap compared to the rest of the world...

That's one cost of our mountains of red tape.

 

[Vixs]

I'm just as shocked with some EFT's where the activities are not completely transparent. Take IOO as an example. Few would know that its holdings, and those of its stalemates, are possibly available for short selling. To discover that, investors would also need to refer to the US Prospectus which governs its listing on the ASX. Not saying the activity is evil or anything like that but investors should be clearly informed of the arrangement and I wonder if they are. I could be wrong of course since it is quite a while since I investigated this brand and things may have changed in the meantime.

Many, many aspects should be tidied up for the public but I suspect it will not happen. Gad, I am such a cynic sometimes.

And yet the iShares ETFs are still leaps and bounds ahead of those that don't actually hold the real assets, just use derivatives to gain comparable exposure.

 

[sptrawler]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/6/23/economy/gruen-urges-reduced-super-fees

Australians spend around $20 billion annually on superannuation fees, which equates to over one per cent of GDP.

“A microeconomic reform that permanently reduced costs across the economy by a few tenths of 1 per cent of GDP would be considered a significant and worthwhile reform,” he said.

“Significant reductions in superannuation fees would have widespread benefits for society as a whole.”

Mr Gruen said while international comparisons are difficult, it is estimated in 2011 Australians’ average superannuation fees were around three times those of the UK.

below charts are sobering reading. we're being legally bilked year after year.

Yet all in the U.K get the Government pension, regardless of them having personal super? What the.lol