List of worst super funds surfaces. Is yours on it?

Productivity Commission wants to extinguish underperforming super funds.

List of worst super funds surfaces. Is yours on it?

This week’s Productivity Commission recommendation that an expert panel decide on the nation’s top 10 superannuation funds could be counterproductive, according to comparison site SuperRatings.

“If the outcome is to reveal what a good product looks like … then there has to be a clear focus on the panel members being truly independent,” SuperRatings chief executive Kirby Rapell told YourLifeChoices.

He said his organisation, which regularly publishes lists of the best-performing super funds, has not been approached yet to sit on the panel.

The panel will be chosen by the Government, which has already raised questions in some observers minds’ that some of the positions may go to ‘mates’ with vested interests in certain outcomes.

Mr Rapell said that rate of return may not be the only metric of performance measured in order to qualify for a top-10 position. If it were the only criteria, then virtually all the top performers listed would be industry funds, as they consistently produce higher returns than funds owned by banks and private financial institutions.

Among the other metrics that may be taken into consideration are the sustainability of the fund, insurance policies, fees and long-term strategy. This may leave an opening for some retail funds to jump onto the list.

Hopefully, no metrics will be taken into consideration that allow Australia’s worst performers to get a foot in the door (see list below).

“Up until now, a new worker who did not select a fund was automatically signed up to a default, which was generally an industry fund named in their EBA (enterprise bargaining agreement),” Mr Rapell said. “But if the commission’s recommendations are observed, no funds will be listed as a default in EBAs.”

This move will steal some of the industry fund sector’s clout going forward, he said.

The Productivity Commission’s report into the efficiency and competitiveness of Australia’s superannuation sector uncovered what Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer called “a massive rip-off” earlier this week.

The report said that close to $4 billion was being lifted from Australians’ nest eggs each year from a combination of fees, flawed insurance policies, poor returns and lost or duplicated fund accounts.

The commission’s call for the sector to be cleaned up has had mixed reviews from both the industry and retail super quarters. Each risk either losing their hallowed positions or being forced to change business-as-usual models.

The review of the sector will see competition among the 200 existing funds ramped up, but eventually many of them may have to fold because they cannot compare with the top 10.

“Those at the bottom quartile for long-term returns will be the biggest losers and typically you could say that encompasses about 10 per cent of the sector,” Mr Rapell said.

The commission has refused to identify which funds are likely to be ‘encouraged’ to merge or fold. But a list published on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) website has thrown some light on the 10 worst performers on the basis of their 10-year returns. At the bottom of the list are:

  • Super Safeguard Fund: -5.7%
  • Lifefocus Super Fund: -1.4%
  • Aon Eligible Rollover Fund: 1.1%
  • Netwealth Super: 1.2%
  • Smartsave ‘Member’s Choice’ Super: 1.5%
  • Super Directions Fund: 1.7%
  • Oasis Super: 1.7%
  • EmPlus Super: 1.8%
  • AMG Super: 1.8%
  • Symetry Personal Retirement: 1.8%

 

An APRA spokesman told YourLifeChoices that no-one should rely purely on its data when choosing a super fund. He said that the list showing the best rates of return for super funds doesn't necessarily indicate that they are the best funds.

"The best performing funds may not suit the particular needs of certain people. For instance, they may have higher fees," he said.

"APRA always urges people to examine a fund's features carefully and seek guidance from a financial adviser before switching."

Are you a member of one of these funds? Have you checked the returns you are receiving from your super fund yet? Are you happy with your fund’s performance? Are you content to trust that your fund manager knows what it is doing with your savings?

RELATED ARTICLES

    This article was updated with information from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority at 10.30am.

    All content on the YourLifeChoices website is of a general nature and has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It has been prepared with due care but no guarantees are provided for ongoing accuracy or relevance. Before making a decision based on this information, you should consider its appropriateness in regards to your own circumstances. You should seek professional advice from a financial planner, lawyer or tax agent in relation to any aspects that affect your financial and legal circumstances. Financial comments provided by readers cannot be relied upon as professional advice, because they are not verified independently by YourLifeChoices.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    les.61
    1st Jun 2018
    10:02am
    Where do we find a full list as my fund is not in the top or bottom 10?
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    10:32am
    Yes. Show the top 10 and the bottom 10 and also show which are industry and which are retail funds. That'll cause a commotion at Liberal Party HQ.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    10:31am
    The list gives the worst performing funds. All retail funds!

    The response from the SupeRatings chief is predicable and the claim that returns are not an indication of a successful fund is total BS straight from government propaganda HQ. Performance and capital stability ARE the only measure of a well performing fund.

    And then the article discusses an 'independent' panel to be chosen by this government. This is again crony stacking which the current government does in every position of responsibility. The aim is to keep unions off the Boards of superannuation companies when it has been shown that this is exactly why these funds occupy the top 10 positions.
    Industry Funds are outperforming retail funds by over 50% BECAUSE union directors are preventing the big end of town from sucking tens of millions of dollars out of the funds every year. End of story.

    I can hardly wait for our government representatives to come up with their normal BS to explain away what is working so well and what needs to be left alone.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    11:29am
    "the claim that returns are not an indication of a successful fund " - first reaction - laughed out loud at that one!!

    Such a statement could only be justified (if at all) by consideration of the long term outcomes from that fund and an analysis of what it is doing.

    It's like Alan Joyce (The IP) copping all the kudos for a simple re-tooling of QANTAS, leading to it paying no tax for years due to the cost of new aircraft etc (a common issue of replacement of tooling), and then suddenly emerging 'in the black' again. The idiot at the helm had fark-all to do with it - but they gave him a huge and unearned bonus, as if his multi-million salary wasn't enough already to oversee such a simple maove. **rolls eyes**

    A monkey could have done it.

    Similarly a super fund should be viewed over the long term, not the short -which is fair enough - but is no consolation to those caught up in its (costly in terms of management fees etc which never fail to their recipients) long-term structuring.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    11:45am
    Yeah you have to laugh at the BS the big end of town posts to fool the mentally challenged. Performance and safety is ALL THAT COUNTS and there is no other "measure".

    Alan Joyce? The $20 million man? Yeah, that is what happens when you allow institutional shareholders (other companies) to vote on remuneration packages. They almost always vote for this as this is a game of leapfrog where what goes around comes around.
    Notice how this government refuses to EVER intervene. What does that say?
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:51pm
    Yes - the 'mums and pops investors' of popular mythology don't get much say in this - since the big boys hold the vast majority of shares - every time - and can thus make the rules to suit themselves and their mates.

    Question is - on what basis do people get a gig in one of these top spots and how do you get to be one of these 'mates'?
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    3:36pm
    Mick, love the way you keep trumpeting on your mates from the Union behalf about how well they are administering their funds. Any dummy (except you, of course), would understand that a prime requisite for such positions of responsibility would require a modicum of financial nous. I hardly see that the head banging role of being a union thug - err sorry, organizer, would fit one with the appropriate skill set of reading the financial tea leaves of company reports, and potential movements in bond rates and interest and currency movements. I can only then surmise that there is a lot of luck in the performance of industry super funds - ohh, and you also forgot to mention the massive donations being made by said funds to the ALP political machine - on behalf of all members - not matter their personal perspective - is that called democracy perchance, Mick??
    Gra
    1st Jun 2018
    3:47pm
    Most annoying to hear David Koch badmouthing unions in regard to Super Funds the other day. Could it possibly have been because these union based Super Funds are doing his cronies out of their ill gotten gains? Even if Union based Super Funds are contributing to unions, it is no different to retail Super Funds giving to their shareholders.

    For the sake of Big Al - obviously there are people on the boards of the Industry Super Funds who know what they are doing or they wouldn't be outperforming the Retail Funds. Sorry Al, take your anti-union stance and stick it. Guess you're just too thick to be able to understand that.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:59pm
    Big Al - left Liberal Party HQ early today?

    I repeat to you again: PUBLISH THE RETURNS OF THE TOP 10 PERFORMING FUNDS.

    You can't. You are a sponsored troll. And you can make assertions as much as you like but I'll keep bringing you back to the table.
    Here are the top 10 Balanced funds with returns over a 5 year period:

    https://www.superratings.com.au/superratings-top-10/

    Funny....they are ALL INDUSTRY FUNDS. Top performer earning just under 11% pa. So where are your sponsored retail funds? Sucking money out to pay highly overpaid top end of town bosses.

    And you talk about union stewardship. Very clear you are posting government propaganda for payment.
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    4:16pm
    Mick, I have a perspective, which is obviously different to yours. Therefore, according to your logic, that makes me a paid operative of the Liberal Party. Well any moron could work out how flawed that logic is! For the record, I am not affiliated with any political party. I have had my share of runs in with unions/organisers over years of management positions, Mick, and I have to tell you that whilst I appreciate their zeal in defending the interest of their members (and ultimately their own), the prospect of them having control over billions of dollars of money scares the living daylights out of me. Two names - Kathy Jackson, and Craig whatever his name was who represented the Central Coast NSW seat - that should scare the daylights out of anyone who wants to champion union control or domination of a super fund. So Mick, put down your little red book - the May day march is long over - take a Bex and calm yourself - you seem very excitable of late - not good for you, old fella!
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    4:23pm
    It's Friday - I'm waiting for heemie with his magical mystery tour contributions... but off to the club for a beer... back later.

    Check yez all before the football starts on tellie tonight. In some ways I am a true Yob Of The People...
    john
    6th Jun 2018
    5:37pm
    GEE MICK I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR SAYING, SOUNDS A BIT LIKE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE OR LACK THERE OF, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING. I THINK THE UNION MOVEMENT DOES A GOOD JOB OF GATHERING AS WELL.
    I hear about super funds donating to the union. I hear about unions donating to the ALP? did anyone ask the rank and file ?
    Or did you have a nice little vote set up to get that OK'd.

    Why have we let three big unions join ?
    That question is never answered, so I'll ask you an easier one, why do unions need such massive financial power, with a membership of around 140,000 members after this amalgamation? Why what is a war chest like that for, and how much do union officials get paid or looked after, or what ever, I just never see the point , when a union is for one thing, only one thing, that is every official , and I mean every official has one job , that is to look after the problems of their immediate rank and file union members.
    They are not there to rubbish and fight any government they ae not there to help mates get into politics, they are there for only one thing and that is their obligation to their people their rank and file.
    Yet we are talking super and money and governments and funs, yet there is always this union thing involved , the union did the hard stuff for workers in Australia it appears now that they only do for themselves now and their mates in politics and anyone who will donate to them. Why is that? What does a union need with millions of dollars, you know.
    Olga Galacho
    1st Jun 2018
    10:42am
    Hi Les and Mick: you can look up your fund on the apra.gov.au site. Follow these steps: click on Statistics, click on Annual fund level superannuation statistics, click on the first Excel spreadsheet, once it has loaded (takes a while), click on the Table 2 at the bottom of the page, scroll right to columns I to K, and you will see the percentage returns of all funds under APRA's watch, over one, five and 10 years. Fascinating!
    les.61
    1st Jun 2018
    10:50am
    Olga

    Thanks

    I will give it a try.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    11:25am
    Thanks. Is the ability to split into Industry and Retail there as well? This is where the real discussion is as we have the routine posters claiming that Industry Funds are not performing when the opposite is true. This is where you could put this issue to bed Olga and it would have been nice if you could have listed the top 10 and worst 10 together with whether these were industry or retail funds. This ends the continua propaganda comments.
    heyyybob
    1st Jun 2018
    11:26am
    Thanks for that Olga :)
    V1K1
    1st Jun 2018
    12:11pm
    Thanks Olga
    Rae
    1st Jun 2018
    1:49pm
    Thank you Olga.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    11:23am
    I get the gist now - the aim is to have some of these poor performing funds 'merge' with well-preforming ones, in the fervent hope that by adding an infusion of povrty to a viable fund, the poverty-stricken component will increase in value.

    It's all very socialist - dare one say it international socialist - in that it bears a direct comparison with bringing up the incomes and living standards of every single individual in the world by removing some income and living standards from those nations 'rich' enough to be 'doing well'.

    The other issue is quite clear to me - merging some of these funds may mean an overhaul of their managing structure, which could well be a nice way of saying 'takeover by the preferred financial institutions by stealth'.

    Trust a politician or a politically appointed body in this nation???? Not as long as their arseholes point downwards.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    11:37am
    The good thing is the current budget wants to change it so all lost super goes to the ATO to find the owners of that super. Now it is just placed in accounts similar to the one above just in case the owner goes looking for it.

    The do gooders however think that it should not be going to the ATO as that is just putting money in the government coffers.

    Personally it is a lot better than what is happening now.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    11:39am
    This happens in industry all the time TREBOR. The management of the poorly performing business then lose their jobs and the poorly performing business is incorporated into the successful one and properly managed.
    As things currently stand THIS government wants to remove all union oversight from the well run superannuation funds so that their buddies from the top end of town can suck out large sums of money every year and then turn good funds into badly performing funds. Funny how the right wing media never picks up on this and protects their own.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:55pm
    Question is - DO the poor performing management lose their jobs or are they merely resurrected into a new position with the 'new' firm?

    Second question is:- where does the new management of the 'new firm' come from? That's my concern at this time - are the current 'successful' management going to remain or are they going to be replaced by............ whomever the government favours?

    The hue and cry will be that any 'amalgamated' firm will be a totally new concern - and thus will need a totally new management team..... in this case, from the Liberals - guess who that will be.

    Just raising questions here....... sorry about my total lack of trust in governments ..... of all stamps ......
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    11:27am
    I just can't stop shaking on this issue as the top performing fund for FYTD is Colonial FS RO - Australian Share Option which is certainly not an industry fund.

    Seriously though I have had a look at the first 2 in that list above and they are default funds for lost super so are meaningless in terms of people asking for their money to be put into them. I have not heard of any of these funds myself so they must be either new or insignificant funds only available to a very few people.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    11:40am
    One sparrow fart doth not a Spring make....
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    11:41am
    I repeat the challenge I put out to you and Big Al a week ago: list the top 10 funds and whether they are industry or retail. YOU REFUSED.

    Now you post a whole pile of nonsense to distract readers from the facts. Put up or shut up!
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    11:44am
    Top funds in what sector over what period? No two funds are identical so how can anyone compare them at all.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    11:49am
    Are you for real OG? Top performing SUPERANNUATION funds. What else are we talking about here.
    The period? One, two and three years would do but whatever.
    You are again trying to muddy the water to fool readers.

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    11:54am
    Mick why don't you look them up yourself and let us all know your finding so we can pull it all apart instead of you trying to get us to do the work so you can pull it apart?
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    11:56am
    Mick can you explain what is an industry fund and what is a retail fund?
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    12:10pm
    There’s always swings and roundabouts and at the end of the day the average returns of all funds should be pretty similar in the long run
    After all they invest in the same instruments so the returns shouldn’t be much different
    As OG pointed out , any differences are purely timing issues due to different ways the returns are calculated by each fund for a particular time frame
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    12:45pm
    If only that were true, Rafe. Unfortunately when some funds year after year perform badly, there's not much to indicate that they are doing well.

    OG - an 'industry' fund is one run by the representatives of those who work in that specific industry - the unions - for the benefit of members first.

    A 'retail' fund is one run by financial institutions for the benefit of shareholders first.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    12:49pm
    So those in the industry including unions benefit from the workers super whereas retail funds pay the dividend of the shares those industry funds invest in. Seems to me like one benefits the other.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    1:18pm
    Ha, ha, ha. I can see OG and Raphael squirming and ducking but nowhere to run and hide boys.
    I repeat my challenge for about the fifth time:

    LIST THE TOP 1O SUPERANNUATION FUNDS and whether they are retail or industry.

    This has nothing to do with which sector or where these finds invest. It has everything to do with the known fact that retail funds have a whole pile of leeches from the big end of town sucking the lifeblood out of the funds they manage. No amount of your rightwing BS can change that and readers will see you refuse to provide the evidence I repeatedly request.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:20pm
    Those unions do not benefit as much via costs and fees as the 'retail' funds, OG, for the simple reason that the 'industry' funds do not charge fees etc as high as retails - you seem to miss that point over and over,

    So while you, and others including myself, may be fairly critical of Union honchoes copping more than one 'directorship' fee etc, alongside an existing salary etc from Union work and sometimes on top of a seat in Parliament - thus being just as greedy and self-interested as many a business person out there - the members of those funds overall benefit to a far higher degree than the members of retail funds do.

    On that other issue - we had the debacle of Cloven-Hoof Moore in Sydney attempting to hold down a seat in NSW Parliament while simultaneously being Mayor of Sydney. That was deemed an unacceptable division of her labour and possible conflict of interest.

    Why then are sitting Parliamentarians permitted to hold down seats on ANY board etc, including Labor Union people - when their entire energies and focus need to be on their management of this nation for their employers - the electorate?

    You go into politics to reap the benefits - you resign immediately and sever all connection with other business ventures - your time spent for this nation is too important to this nation to be diluted by your personal interests (thank you, Barnaby).....

    Such a rule should immediately remove from contention any of those who simply wish to g into politics to further self-enrich.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:25pm
    It is clear that many Union and Labor people, just like their business mates, are more interested in garnering as much personal wealth from their work as the most craven business vulture. In other words - their actions do not accord with their stated beliefs and they regard Union managing and political appointment as just a business.

    There are SOME genuine Union people who regard their work for Unions as a sacred trust, albeit it with some very good financial returns. Some such, from the TWU and the much-maligned CFMEU (or whatever it is now), are in that category, and they are the same ones who repeatedly take the hits from this governments in its war against a segment of its own people.

    What a choice we have in this poor nation as to who to elect.....

    Poor Fellow - My Country!
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    4:06pm
    Agree TREBOR. The returns from Industry Funds speak for themselves and the question needs to be asked as to WHY Retail Funds are doing so poorly. The difference is union representation on the Boards of Industry Funds who act for their members. Were they not there then the returns would be the same as poorly performing Retail Funds.

    The current government is crapping on about 'unions' the same as it did about 'Trickle Down Economics' and that there was no need for a Royal Commission into banks. We all know different.

    This government is in power to benefit the top end of town. Nothing to do with anything else and the government sponsored trolls (we all know who they are) are simply put here to confuse and distract average citizens so that they vote the current mongrels back in. They won't.
    Rae
    1st Jun 2018
    5:44pm
    Maybe member representation on retail fund boards might be the go.

    I'll volunteer. I'd even join a retail fund if I could be on the board.

    Does that come with commissions? Business class travel? Lurks and perks?

    Something has to be costing returns cause they all just seem to hug the indexes.

    I can do that and get better results.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:52pm
    The top performing superannuation fund is the politician's fund..... I wonder why that could be.... ummmm ... could it be because they stand to lose nothing since it is not based on commercial profit, but is a handout from the government?

    Ummm ... hard question that..... really hard ......

    They're all the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo...
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:54pm
    Yes, Rae - the perks - they get travel, accommodation, fees, remuneration, bonuses, and.. you guessed it .... super, for sitting on the board.

    Terrific work if you can get it.....
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    6:31pm
    And while we're at it - let us not forget the specter of Peter Costello and the like still pulling super and salary - in his case for 'managing' the stolen Futures Fund - or sitting on government created 'boards such as Submarines etc - and adding to their super pile out of that massively preferential scheme while doing buggar all in reality but sit in a board meeting and play the nodding clown.

    And all without one iota of conscience.. sociopaths all ....

    At least Fat Joe The Biggest Loser In Politics is doing a sort of job... as long as he doesn't open his mouth we may not be at war with the United States....
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:05am
    Yes TREBOR and let's not forget the seed money for that fund was at least half our gold and our telecom. Good work if you can pinch taxpayer assets for your own enrichment and yet never get slammed as a crook. Selling the gold at the hundred year bottom should have ensured Costello never got another look in in any sort of investment ever again.
    stekmer
    1st Jun 2018
    12:26pm
    Worst performing should be broadened to include needless delays in processing.
    Super SA (State Govt Fund) has reasonable returns but its organisation is hopeless:
    * shut down its site for over a week, for a planned upgrade.
    * delays in processing account changes now extend to the new financial year
    * takes 2 to 3 weeks after receipt of funds before showing funds moved from other Super funds
    * takes 4 to 6 weeks to move money from a Rollover product to an Income Stream

    Excuses for the delays are mainly around a 'planned upgrade' resulting in staff needing to learn a new system.
    I would have thought you might train your staff in the new system before an upgrade, not after it.

    Not being able to see where your money is - all of my Super - in the weeks leading up to setting up an Income Stream in retirement is VERY POOR
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    12:42pm
    What about all those funds who wont release funds when someone has cancer? They take weeks to say no and then one has to find a fund that will say yes and it then takes weeks to transfer their super into that fund so it can be released. Meanwhile that person with cancer is drowning under a mountain of bills they cannot pay.

    Also small balances are quickly eaten up in fees where a person is left with nothing. I have even seen bills from super funds for fees after their balance has been exhausted. I often wonder if people paid them instead of simply asking their fund to be closed. Yes they were so called industry funds.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:10pm
    You specific case shows a need for some regulation and oversight.... watch what you ask for.....
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    1:20pm
    All a distraction guys. PLEASE PUBLISH THE RETURNS OF THE TOP 10 FUNDS!!!!
    Can't? I wonder why!
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    3:36pm
    Mick it would be frustrating being in the best performing fund if you couldn't access your super when it was time to do so. I'd be looking for a fund that that suited my needs not one that supposedly did well. Remember the returns are all measured differently from fund to fund so being the top fund is meaningless to me. I note that the supposedly top industry fund is a fund that I personally would never put my money anywhere near due to the hassles I have seen others have with it.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:48pm
    PUBLISH THE GAZETTED RETURNS FROM THE TOP 10 FUNDS. You won't because you know it will show up your lies for what they are.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    3:53pm
    Mick I couldn't care less what industry or retail fund was at the bottom or the top as I have no interest at all of giving them even one cent of my money.

    I don't even invest in managed funds outside super. If I can't get my money back at the click of a button then I am simply not interested.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    4:11pm
    Well I do OG. Not because I benefit from super. I don't.
    The argument YOU and the other trolls have run is 'it is the bad unions to blame'. That sounds like Adolph Hitler blaming the Jews for the ills of Germany which led to mass murder.
    I suggest your post is in the same vein. You seek to destroy what is both good and working so well for average citizens. This is the Class Warfare I talk about: the transfer of wealth from average citizens to the rich. Raiding the super accounts of average people is both morally wrong and sick. Your choice of employer is reprehensible and I do not respect you for this. Deny as you will.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:28pm
    I also do not benefit from super - I just see a lie when I see it.
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    5:42pm
    It was a RETAIL fund that charged my partner more than the employer contributions and kept sending bills - adding interest at a very high rate. Eventually, the government ordered the fund to stop and they wrote saying they had ''SUSPENDED'' the debt pending further contributions being received, which they would credit against the total still owing. Needless to say they never received any further contributions, but three years of employer contributions went down the drain.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:55pm
    Rainey - I am frankly astounded at that kind of utterly unscrupulous action. Nothing but a pack of thieves.
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    12:51pm
    Great to see we have a Financial Services Minister who has had some hands on experience in the industry with her banking background and having the political will to clean it up.
    The message is, Poor Performance Will No Longer Be Tolerated.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:11pm
    'banking experience' - no recommendation.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    1:21pm
    More BS from the next paid government troll.
    P"Poor performance" = Retail Funds. End of story. Tell it as you will.
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    2:50pm
    I realise TREBOR that the notion may be unknown to some. Kinda reminds me when Swan, Rudd, Bowen and Shorten develop a mining tax. Because they had no idea they asked the miners to formulate their own tax. We all no the result. Yep, no tax was raised.
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    2:55pm
    MICK, I don't really care about which funds out perform which. I do know that retail funds have had an enormous cost with distribution. Unlike industry funds which don't have this cost because members are forced into industry funds. All that seems to be changing now?
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    3:28pm
    Correct, Adrianus - and yet many still carry on about the 'carbon tax' and the 'resources tax' as if they destroyed the economy.

    One great truism I noted through out my life is that managers who run a business into the ground always seem to get another shot at a management spot somewhere else - on the basis of their 'experience'.

    Same seems to apply here - once a banker robber baron - a certain recommendation for a position in government handling anything financial......

    Jesus....
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    3:29pm
    Oh - and industry funds don't force members into them - on the form there is an option forjhaving your super placed in a fund of your choice.
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    3:34pm
    I agree TREBOR, the ASIC boss didn't stick around in USA to face the allegations but landed a high paying job in OZ thanks to Kevin.

    Its probably only coincidence that ASIC then became a place where people would meet each day to have lunch.

    Yeh, just tell that to all the Storm victims.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:40pm
    Ha, ha, ha. Right wing trolls trying to change the subject to avoid the facts.

    The Mining Tax? Where do you think tax cuts for the wealthy are heading? Yes Adrianus.....offshore, straight into the bank accounts of wealthy Americans. Lie 1 dispelled!

    Retail vs Industry Funds? You must think readers are stupid Adrianus. So you believe returns do not matter???? Returns are EVERYTHING. That is what is under discussion here. Read my post below where I give figures.

    Everybody here realises WHO the right wing government funded posters are. If Labor gets in and kicks off a federal ICAC you better find somewhere to hide as your rotten employer goes down.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    4:21pm
    It's all grist for the information mill, Mick - I like to see as many sides of a question as possible...

    ASIC - hmmm .. another shot duck... wonder why??

    Never trust a politician or party.
    Adrianus
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:23am
    MICK, you nutter, I stated the returns don't matter to me. They have no bearing on my life. I don't care which funds are outperforming which funds. However, if I was thinking about joining either a retail or industry fund then historical credited rates would matter slightly. I say slightly because a members decision should not be based on the rate of return over the last few years. There are many other features of a super fund which should be of benefit and higher up the scale than the applied rate of return.
    Would you buy a car purely based on how fast it goes? How many times it has finished in the top 10 at Bathurst??


    Lets be realistic, the credited rates of return mean even less due to the political pressure surrounding them.

    Its the one positive that industry funds cling to in order to save their political backsides.
    If they didn't have this they wouldn't have an argument for the status quo. Think mick, think!

    Don't you think it possible that fund managers can value up assets in order to buy political credits.
    When industry funds kicked off, the concept sounded like a panacea and has had an enormous effect on the traditional life companies' idea of super, as too has banks' lower cost option, but they are now no different to retail funds. Keating must have envisaged this trend unfolding when he insisted the banks develop a RSA product as a low cost easily accessed alternative. The RSAs still remain as the lowest fee based super option and operate without a master trust arrangement.
    Yes MICK, historical returns should be seen for what they are.
    cupoftea
    1st Jun 2018
    1:09pm
    They just change the rules but at the end they want industry super and very time they change they get closer if you are not in my industry I don't want you in my super
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    1:23pm
    Actually what is wanted is to allow the top end of town to come in, manage funds which are doing well and suck the blood out of them the same as is being done with retail funds. Turnbull and his government may go on about 'union' representatives on the Boards of Industry Funds but this is precisely WHY they perform better: the big end of town has been prevented from turning them onto yet another private bank account to be drained of funds.
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    1:51pm
    Members on the boards of industry funds must be made up of non union reps
    6% returns over the last 10 years is a joke . Hate to think how much of the actual returns have gone to these grubby union officials sitting on the board and management
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    2:05pm
    .. but certainly not from the financial sector, Rafe... no way would I allow those vultures anywhere near a super fund, or any other fund for that matter, based on their performance and ethics (laughs out loud - hands around a single clean sheet of paper titled 'Ethics Of The Financial Sector')...

    As I said - I have an issue with union paid managers and sitting parliamentarians receiving remuneration and fees and perks from sitting on superannuation boards as well as doing their paid jobs on our behalf.

    That applies across the board, however - not just to those you arbitrarily title 'union grubs' - and equally applies to any person maintaining an interest outside of their work for this nation. One rule for all.... if you preclude Union people from sitting in Parliament because they hold another job - you must exclude all who hold any other job as well. Similarly, if you preclude Union representation on super boards due to potential conflict of interest, you must preclude all others with any potential commercial interest.

    The difference between us is that your criticism is personal and based on ideology while mine is based on taking exception to the facts on the ground - equally from all sides.

    All of this is why I advocated The Trebor Plan retirement packaging scheme - totally out of the hands of all vultures, current or potential.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    2:41pm
    A reply straight from Liberal Party HQ Raphael. Who writes your scripts?
    The FACTS are that your buddies want to milk the superannuation cash cow and the current government along with paid trolls like you are expediting this with comments like yours.

    I put the same challenge to you as a couple of other government commentors:

    PUBLISH THE TOP TEN SUPERANNUATION FUNDS AND THEIR RETURNS TO MEMBERS.

    You cannot do that because you are posting lies about 'union thugs' to confuse those who have no idea. Retail Funds are making < 6% returns because the big end of town are milking them. Industry Funds are making significantly more because union members are keeping the snouts of managers out of the feeding trough and away from profits. That is why this government is seeking to remove union oversight.
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    3:28pm
    Raphael, it has been difficult to get rid of those grubby crooks. One industry fund wanted to rid themselves of a board member but couldn't, even though he was facing a gaol sentence for using union members' money for his own personal benefit. And he was an ex Labor Party President. The CFMEU has a lot of influence over where industry super is invested. They threatened to pull the CBUS investments from First State Super unless they played ball. I realise MICK thinks that's ok but many of us are depressed by this sort of thing. We are just trying to feel that our lifetime savings are secure and not subject to the whims of hotheads.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    3:38pm
    Are you absolutely certain, with supporting evidence amounting to proof, that the CFMEU actually did that and not perhaps CFMEU operatives who sat on the board of an industry fund?

    Are you blaming the Union as a whole for the actions of a few who are not strictly under the control of the members, and in fact by as board members of a super fund are outside the union in that position? I know many find it hard to get a grip on those kinds of realities.... a Union and an industry super fund are separate legal entities.... same as any other business structure involving more than one discrete organisation....

    Are YOUR lifetime savings in the hands of the CFMEU or an industry super fund, Adrianus? Or in a retail fund?

    (thank you, Mr Pike - 'My politics are my own concern!' sounds a good answer - where I have my cash stashed is my own concern)...
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:42pm
    Amusing seeing the trolls play tag team.

    The FACTS: union representation on Boards keeps the top end of town away from the feeding trough. This is what the cash for comment posters above seek to stop so that their wealthy clients gain access to jobs they can milk all of us to sustain with ever increasing pay packets.
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:20am
    Superannuation is designed to milk our incomes quarter by quarter.

    There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original Welfare Fund and the 7.5% everyone paid into it bar the super rich living on cashflow and capital.

    That 7.5% invested sensibly and with minimum costs and fees etc should have been quite sufficient.

    It was the LNP that stole it. Nothing will ever change that.

    When has there ever been a time when the 90% started gaining income ground that the 10% didn't thieve the lot through some sort of sort, tax or legislation?

    Even after the Black Death when serfs were worth money and could finally gain freedom the bastard enacted the first Labour Laws to keep them in bondage.

    Bah Humbug to Superannuation. It's a scheme to get at your savings pure and simple.
    Adrianus
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:35am
    Sadly that is on the mark Rae. The mob accessed the pension funds through the union bosses.
    Super has become a scheme to put your lotto ticket money into and hope for the best. :(
    Adrianus
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:57am
    "a Union and an industry super fund are separate legal entities"-TREBOR.
    Yes , that may be true, but in practice we've seen what happens when those "separate legal entities" share board members.
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/union-boss-reaped-super-benefits-20110913-1k7wx.html
    TREBOR
    2nd Jun 2018
    6:28pm
    Yes - but we must never forget that the vast majority of board positions across this nation are held by the 'top 200' - a special 'in' club, where a few hold many board positions, as if somehow they are actually worth anything for doing so.

    I've already roasted the idea that an interested person should hold a position on a board... inevitable, I suppose - but needs to be carefully regulated.

    The sad thing about all these scams etc is that the end result is over-regulation and stifling.
    Adrianus
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:56am
    The apparent conflict of interest brings into question the selection process and motives. Regardless, the potential board member should recuse themselves, but they don't do they? They see it as an opportunity.
    Rae
    3rd Jun 2018
    3:01pm
    How is it any different from bankers being on retail boards I'm pretty sure the bank that board member represents get's a fair amount of the investment dollar. We'll never know because they won't say.

    You are calling out one side because you don't like unions.

    Don't forget the employer is also represented on Industry Boards.

    You want just the bosses and bankers involved? Something against workers having representation. Perhaps you don't think them worthy enough. That was exactly what Fraser and Howard thought. That workers were too dumb to look after themselves and the "private" sector knows best.
    ex PS
    6th Jun 2018
    10:46am
    Raphael, it is quite obvious that it is the inclusion of Union representatives on Super boards that is them in the black, there is no way that the capitalist members can siphon of the cream without the contributes knowing about it.
    The facts speak for themselves, which funds are doing better than the rest? All the right wing rhetoric in the world can't change the facts.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:35pm
    As a side note - I personally love this kind of discussion - an amazing amount of truth comes out, and any genuine person could learn a lot from these discussions.

    OG has contbituted to my fund of knowledge/understanding by point to the move to put unclaimed funds with the ATO for resolution and for again raising the issue of fees on small accounts that effectively suck those bone dry, and the need for uniform handling of claims due to illness etc... i.e. too much discretion in the hands of the fund.

    Without such contributions it can be very difficult for anyone to retain a grip on all the issues involved.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    1:36pm
    I must list all the issues raised and file it properly... very remiss of me. I plead old age, laziness these days and lack of good whiskey.
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:25am
    Don't forget insurance scams where you are not covered after certain ages or if unemployed or when there is two or three life insurance policies for the same person.

    How an unemployed person thinks they'll get income protection payouts escapes me. The laziness of not opting out proves the solution is to have opt in insurance only.

    Anyone over 65 still paying for it is crazy.
    GrayComputing
    1st Jun 2018
    2:04pm
    Private superannuation has been the BIGEST CON hoisted on the Australian public.

    MLC ripped me off and lost $1/2 million of my money along with many in the GFC and still charged me thousands of dollars for loosing it.
    Total B***** like most of them in the rip um off and run field.
    Proudly supported by all side in Politics with their own nice share holdings in the same robber baron companies and even have golden parachutes when they stuff up the economy with another $18 billion of debt
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:32pm
    Yes - I had private super way back and worked out the costs over its 'lifetime' - around 70% of the final outcome went to pay someone else - money lost that I could do better with myself.

    Better to invest in property than in super, in the long term - at least you know the money is yours at the end.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:34pm
    Company sand-bagged me for $100k once - not much by today's standards, but at that time about three times AWE, and over half the price of a Sydney home.

    You may notice I never forget....
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    5:49pm
    A union ripped off a friend for 10 years of super contributions. After 10 years, they confessed to having done a deal with the employer to allow the employer to pay workers compensation insurance premiums out of super contributions, because the job was dangerous and premiums were high. Weird thing is that the union agreed, in wages negotiations, that the job was NOT dangerous so danger money wasn't payable. Apparently 3 deaths and 4 serious injuries in a team of 18 over 10 years does not evidence a dangerous occupation! Okay, it was a long time ago and an extraordinarily filthy union. I still think unions are needed, and many perform a good service.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    11:00pm
    Trust me - I value the personal stories (anecdotes) that come out here... they give me more and more information on how exactly the multi-faced scams operate.

    The bottom line, to me, is that any time someoe operates with Other Peoploe's Money - they have no care or even consideration of a duty of care.

    They just assume iut's all there for their own personal fiefdom (such as the infamous Thommo), and that there is always more where that came from, so why worry? Just use it and 'justify' it in your own personal expenses....

    Jesus - they roasted some Aboriginal Councils over using funding to buy homes for family and friends and for buying expensive cars so they could ride in them Satanic Hearses....

    Any time anyone gets their hands on POM - they figure it is theirs to put around as they see fit - nowhere more than in government which handles billions of OUR money.

    Always more where that came from... talk about generational debt - we are all being lobed with generational debt every time the elected clown show sets some navel-gazing policy in motion.... and that includes the 'right' side with their business navel-gazing that can't see beyond 'trickle-down' and short term gain for mates.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    11:03pm
    Dang - that was OPM - Other People's Money... and a couple of other errors there.... sorry....
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:36am
    I created a simple spreadsheet when completing my farm managers course that showed the contributions I made to super, which were non concessional and produced $465 000 over 36 years, would have bought 8 houses just using the same amount of after tax pay and deducting interest payments and adding rents but not depreciation or negative gearing.

    Makes you wonder why a perfectly good system when mum and dad bought a house, raised the kids, bought a holiday pad to retire to. Sold the house and all got the aged pension paid for by that 7.5% tax was canned for the dog's breakfast we have now.

    Yes it created the most lucrative rip off financial services industry in the world. Whooppee Doodah!!!
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    2:47pm
    The returns for the top 10 funds, all Industry Funds from what I can see ranges from worst (7.69%) to the best (8.9%).

    Link for this (see for yourself) is:

    https://www.superratings.com.au/superratings-top-10/

    Readers need to totally ignore the posters running propaganda for their political sponsors. Then normal crew put onto this website to gain support for the LNP with an election imminent.
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    3:31pm
    My investments are in international shares and high growth
    The top performing funds with that option is mostly retail
    Also the lowest fees are all retail

    Just supports the well known fact that union officials are gouging and double dipping by being paid union salaries , managenent salaries and directors fees
    The poor industry fund member get 6-9% in a booming share market and think they are doing fine
    While the smart investor is getting 15%
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:45pm
    I care not where YOUR investments are. It could be Hades which might be quite appropriate for you.
    The issue is SUPERANNUATION and most Australians have superannuation accounts. What they do not need is the top end of town milking their accounts and leaving them peanuts...which is exactly why retail funds are performing so poorly.
    My advice to those who have retail funds is to roll your hard earned money into an industry fund so that You get the benefits rather than directors living on the North Shore slugging you for their lifestyle.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    3:46pm
    Mick that varies depending on what option and period you pick. So you picked an option and period in which only industry funds were listed. Job well done.

    However if I pick Australian Shares I get Colonial FS RO at 13.56% which is a retail fund nearly twice your returns.


    I certainly would not be happy if my super was only getting 8.9%.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    3:49pm
    Mick my biggest return comes from a cheque I receive every year for a retail fund I closed 20 years ago. They keep sending a cheque every year for a few dollars. Even a dollar on nothing is a the biggest percentage return one can get.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    4:15pm
    You are talking utter tripe OG. Shares are about winners and losers and managed funds nearly always do better than looking after your own interests. I say that from experience.
    Your post is, as usual, to deceive readers.

    Check it out:

    https://www.superratings.com.au/superratings-top-10/

    Great returns for doing nothing!
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    4:40pm
    I did check it out
    Retail funds charge less fees and for my investmet profile provide better returns
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    4:40pm
    Mick I know where my money is invested but do you? From what I have seen and know about managed funds I don't care what return they get I am not interested in them at all.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    5:24pm
    Ha, ha, ha, ha. Thanks for the belly laugh Raphael.
    Alan Kohler has credibility because he presents the facts. You have none because you are untruthful.
    Koher presenter his normal graph the other day clearly showing that RETAIL FUNDS HAVE DOUBLE, I REPEAT, DOUBLE THE FESS OF INDUSTRY FUNDS.
    Post lies for the mentally challenged and welcome to the Liberal Party Christmas party.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    5:35pm
    Mick fees is only one issue with returns. A fund can have big fees and big returns or low fees and low returns too.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    6:34pm
    Be nice to see at least one of these 'retail funds' manage that at least one year out of twenty-five, OG....... that big fees and big returns....
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    6:37pm
    Mick - why post a link to a site and then refute the results when your lies are exposed
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    8:51am
    Not all MICK. Raphael is correct here. For his profile there are low cost index retail funds that allow access to international shares both hedged and unhedged, allowing for currency plays, and also run higher risk funds and even REITS and ETFs. The investment can be set up as Superannuation or as a personal account outside super.

    Not for the faint hearted nor the financially illiterate or lazy but you can get returns twice the size of ordinary funds but can also wear heavy losses at times. A 24 hour turn around adds a bit of risk but the access to overseas shares, bonds and property may make that reasonable.

    Raphael can obviously wear the ups and downs of the game. Most can't and that is the main difference between the true investor and those forced into it by government legislation.

    Forcing PAYG workers to invest in markets was a nonsense when the 7.5% originally in the welfare fund could have been cheaply managed by a single group as the Future Fund is.

    Come a decent correction let's see how terrific people think superannuation is.
    Anonymous
    2nd Jun 2018
    10:50pm
    Don’t expect to hear from Mick
    When he runs out of lies , he moves on to the next topic to spew his bile
    Adrianus
    1st Jun 2018
    3:22pm
    A lot of people may be asking "what does a union boss do on the board of a super fund?"
    Does anyone know?
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    3:31pm
    What does any boss do on the board of a super fund?
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    3:39pm
    One would hope that they have relevant business acumen in the fields of investing risk managent and corporate governance as opposed to thieving from poor union members and thuggery and blackmail
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    3:40pm
    Gets paid to attend meetings and say yes to everything put on the table would be my answer.
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    3:46pm
    Quite obvious trolls. They are there to keep your bosses away from the feeding trough so that the returns from the fund do not end up in their bank accounts. NOTHING MORE. You know that.
    Old Geezer
    1st Jun 2018
    4:02pm
    Mick the union man through and through.
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    4:15pm
    How do you think Mick made his millions . Spends 3 months a year in Aspen 3 in Europe
    He sleeps peacefully at night all this time sitting pretty on money gouged from the poor union member

    Folks - now you know why he is so pro union, industry funds and will support labor no matter which criminal is in charge and how bad their policies are
    MICK
    1st Jun 2018
    4:18pm
    Had to be in a union whilst working. No choice. But then given veracious employers who seek to destitute workers at the very least that was safety for me.
    Now nothing to do with unions other than understand if you and your employer manage to dismantle them workers will be turned into American style slaves where they have a full time job, no house (because they cannot afford one) and are on food stamps because they get paid $9 an hour. I do not subscribe to that. All yours....and I hope your children and theirs curse you for what you are bringing into existence. Shameful Australian.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:37pm
    That's what all board members do, OG - attend a meeting, nod the clown heads, and take the cheque. You don't really believe all those economic misfits actually know what they are doing, do you, without the fish in the barrel the governments keep handing them?
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    5:39pm
    **have to work on that one - 'fish handed out of the pork barrel'... I so like a good turn of phrase... it's an Irish/Scottish Gemini thing)...
    Anonymous
    1st Jun 2018
    5:51pm
    Of course board members know what they are doing, Trebor. They are lining their pockets and feeding their buddies hoards of gold. And when they are caught rorting, they resign (sometimes with an ''apology'') and move on to the next opportunity.
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    6:00pm
    Yes - in their next 'job application' in the closed shop, they get extra marks for 'experience'.....
    TREBOR
    1st Jun 2018
    9:43pm
    Jeez - some could even end up as government 'ministers' - one of perhaps a half dozen of so handling 'financial matters'... Jesus God - what do we pay a 'treasurer' for? An extra free ride?

    "Hear ye - we will now hear from the Minister for Procurement of Pens and Ink" ....... "then we will hear further from the Minister for Procuring Staples and Paper Clips..."
    Rae
    2nd Jun 2018
    9:01am
    Most have been the representative of the workers dealing with Superannuation issues between members, the fund and the employers.

    They have usually run numerous information sessions and co-ordinated with the fund, members and employer. They inform union members of changes and necessary actions. They keep the union officials informed of proposed changes and possible problems.

    After a few decades doing that they are rewarded by a board appointment and continue to liaise with the fund, employer and the new union superannuation rep.

    Keeping the union informed of fund and employer actions and desires. Belling the cat and probably worth the lousy $140 000 or so they get paid.
    ex PS
    6th Jun 2018
    10:49am
    Pretty much what retired politicians do on boards, but Union reps are not retired and answer to the members.
    Old Geezer
    2nd Jun 2018
    10:11am
    There is an article in The Australian this morning about people in the pension phase getting ripped off by their super fund. They are referring to the 15% tax for those in the accumulation phase being applied to those in the pension phase when they should not be paying the 15% tax.

    Retirees are being ripped off by their super funds by their super funds not giving them their tax free income and refunding their franking credits.
    P$cript
    7th Jun 2018
    5:47pm
    OG, what a load of ....!

    From your response you don't have a clue as to the operation of the super industries or the laws.
    john
    6th Jun 2018
    5:24pm
    Did we all know that some unions get donations from super funds, why would that be. And for what?
    And of course where does that money go, its investors money, how do you feel if you don't want to donate to any unions?

    Depending on your politics you may not want your union donating to a political party? Even if you supported the ALP you still may not want your union fees donated to a political party.
    So the question again , what do unions do with donations, maybe they send it to politics?

    That is not what unions are for, they are only for the rank and file. Nothing else!

    They do not need wealth, but they have it, WHY?
    john
    6th Jun 2018
    5:49pm
    To Gra,
    what I want to know , is what unionms are doing any where near funds ,super , political parties , they have no place there , so I saty they only do one thing, that look after their people in the workforce, why are they grabbing funds from super, why are they donating agreed amounts to the ALP. tHE UNIONS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE MENTIONED , THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN INVESTMENT OR ANY OTHER KIND OF MONEY MAKING SET UPS, BECAUSE THEY ARE A PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FOR WORKERS nothing else. Again the question why do unions need millions why do unions need any more properties than the building they work out of, what happens in the end as we have all seen , is the corruption that comes from some organisations that get too involved in the money market of life, They forget what their job is, some of them get into deep deep dark trouble and suffer for their corruption as we've seen , but it is still happening and the meaning of the union has disappeared.
    It is now a political manipulator when it should be helping and looking after and continually visiting its members everywhere on a monthly basis. But the union I know hasn't been near any of my people for ages. Invisible, its why I have no more time for the bullshit and lack of help from them . So why are they making so much money? WHY?
    There you go I've asked that question a couple of times now , no one sees it or even knows whats going on so sit back sheep and cop it. Like we've always done!
    johnp
    5th Nov 2018
    12:13pm
    this site is quite good - Moneymanagement like a ratings agency
    Who underperformed in the Aussie equities space?
    While the worst performing funds included an Islamic, a bear hedge, and an Australian value wholesale fund , FE Analytics data.
    https://investmentcentre.moneymanagement.com.au/news/752515/who-underperformed-in-the-aussie-equities-space


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles