A SUPER Question!

[Hot Spenny]

Just a quick question about my super...

I am a student. All my Super is with the AERF, when i stopped working full time a couple of years ago it was all shipped to this fund for some reason, and my account with another place was closed. I had forgot about it
until very recently.

Earlier this year I joined Australian Super, but haven't earned enough to earn super. So there is nothing in there.

I am not sure if I should transfer all of my funds into this account or just leave it where it is until I start working full time, as it says they charge a dollar a week fee, while I paid 25 bucks in fees for last year with the AERF. I am at a loss!

If so, is this the correct form to use?

Thank, I am an idiot.

 

[nokiacasio]

I think Australian Super charges a certain amount per week in admin fees, so you might want to check that out. If AERF has lower admin fees then it's better to keep it in there. Maybe check management fees as well. Not sure what the exact numbers are.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Fees should be a long way down the list of considerations when choosing a fund. If you're stressing about $25 in fees now, how will you cope later in life when you have to deal with mortgages, personal loans, investments, etc? Nothing's free in life, not even superannuation.

Forget industry funds, they're rubbish. Choose a retail fund and stick with it through all your employers.

 

[chooke]

Fees should be a long way down the list of considerations when choosing a fund. If you're stressing about $25 in fees now, how will you cope later in life when you have to deal with mortgages, personal loans, investments, etc? Nothing's free in life, not even superannuation.

Forget industry funds, they're rubbish. Choose a retail fund and stick with it through all your employers.

Let me guess, you are either a commission based salesman (opps sorry, financial planner) or you work within the retail fund sector. Industry and Public Sector funds have outperformed retail funds every year for the past 15 years and of course are lower cost becasue they don't pay commissions to salesman or dividends to comapny shareholders. I mean everyone in the industry (like the funds, ASIC, Choice the superannuation rating agencies) knows and understands this.

To the original poster, go and check the facts for yourself - google independent sources of information like Asic, superatings, chantwest just for starters,

No, to the orginal poster, if i was you I would roll into Australian Super as they are an industry fund with a better investment track record and lower fees than retail funds.

 

[Papa G]

Retail Funds are transparent. Industry Funds are not. Sure you may pay more in fees, but you won't be lied to as full disclosure of the returns on a unitised level is compulsory for retail funds. Many industry funds hold large investments in unlisted securities which they pick and choose their valuation points. Also many industry funds do not include ongoing SG and personal contributions in their yearly returns and thus the losses on funds contributed through the year are not recorded.

Sure many retail funds underperform some industry funds, but with good advice you can beat industry funds performance and lies.

 

[1jasonoz]

Retail Funds are transparent. Industry Funds are not. Sure you may pay more in fees, but you won't be lied to as full disclosure of the returns on a unitised level is compulsory for retail funds. Many industry funds hold large investments in unlisted securities which they pick and choose their valuation points. Also many industry funds do not include ongoing SG and personal contributions in their yearly returns and thus the losses on funds contributed through the year are not recorded.

Sure many retail funds underperform some industry funds, but with good advice you can beat industry funds performance and lies.

what a load of rubbish!!!

You started at the first line with rubbish then continued it on from there!

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Let me guess, you are either a commission based salesman (opps sorry, financial planner) or you work within the retail fund sector. Industry and Public Sector funds have outperformed retail funds every year for the past 15 years and of course are lower cost becasue they don't pay commissions to salesman or dividends to comapny shareholders. I mean everyone in the industry (like the funds, ASIC, Choice the superannuation rating agencies) knows and understands this.

And you sound like a union rep who believes the BS that industry funds spread.

I'm not even going to buy into this debate, because chumps like you are so convinced that industry funds are the best thing since sliced bread that you are unwilling to listen to reason.

Like I said in my previous post, if fees are your main concern, go ahead and stick to the "too good to be true" industry funds. I'm sure that 1% in fees difference will help you sleep better at night

 

[nokiacasio]

Fees should be a long way down the list of considerations when choosing a fund. If you're stressing about $25 in fees now, how will you cope later in life when you have to deal with mortgages, personal loans, investments, etc? Nothing's free in life, not even superannuation.

For a young person who is in his mid 20s, seemingly small differences in fees can add up over the 40 years he waits till he can take out money from his super. ASIC forces the funds management industry to warn potential investors about this in product disclosure forms.

 

[Papa G]

what a load of rubbish!!!

You started at the first line with rubbish then continued it on from there!

Industry Funds, not quite the beacon of truth and integrity they claim to be.

Shortcut to: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24148817-5001942,00.html

 

[chooke]

Yes, great link... especially the bottom of the article stating the author "Peter O'Toole is principal wealth manager at Private Wealth Management" a commission sales company staffed by commissioned salesmen and women. I mean what else is that guy going to say? It's a bit like a expecting a priest to write an article on the virtues of atheism. As we all know (including ASIC) commission salespeople (who have the gall to call themselves "financial advisers") don't like industry or public sector funds because they dont provide kickbacks.

Mate stop pushing the retail fund crap, the facts that industry and public sector super funds have signifcantly outperformed retails over the past 10 years (and at signficantly less cost) is on the record, everyone in this industry knows it including most of the commision salesmen even though they try to deny it. Any cursory look at unbiased rating sites like these demonstrate the obvious.

http://www.superratings.com.au/ or
http://www.chantwest.com.au/

even the less trendy corporate funds easily outperform the retails.

 

[Almost Famous]

lol @ Chantwest. If they want to have any credibility whatsoever they will stop giving 80% of the funds they survey a 5 out of 5 apple rating. SuperRatings is the only survey house that matters.

As for fees whats the big interest in them? Surely any logically thinking person is more concerned about the final outcome? ie returns (which are net of fees anyway).

 

[Papa G]

Yes, great link... especially the bottom of the article stating the author "Peter O'Toole is principal wealth manager at Private Wealth Management" a commission sales company staffed by commissioned salesmen and women. I mean what else is that guy going to say? It's a bit like a expecting a priest to write an article on the virtues of atheism. As we all know (including ASIC) commission salespeople (who have the gall to call themselves "financial advisers") don't like industry or public sector funds because they dont provide kickbacks.

Mate stop pushing the retail fund crap, the facts that industry and public sector super funds have signifcantly outperformed retails over the past 10 years (and at signficantly less cost) is on the record, everyone in this industry knows it including most of the commision salesmen even though they try to deny it. Any cursory look at unbiased rating sites like these demonstrate the obvious.

http://www.superratings.com.au/ or
http://www.chantwest.com.au/

even the less trendy corporate funds easily outperform the retails.

Doesn't he state in the article that he does not recieve commissions on investment products and is totally fee for service?

The "facts" are there, just some of the facts, particularly how many industry funds value certain investments are not beyond reproach.

 

[The KEY]

I think one of the most over looked differences between industry and retail super funds is the policy wording in regards to the insurances, especially TPD and TSC.

My brother in law had an industry fund and retail, came off his motorbike and was lucky to survive, will never return to his job (manual worker). Industry fund refused to pay (wont mention which one) and the retail fund paid after 6 months (again wont mention which one). After that i switched out of the same industry fund. It all bolis down to what each individual wants, but you really need to read the fine print especially if insurance for you to protect your family is involved.

For me, paying for disability insurance in an industry fund is a waste of money, because the fund wont pay you

 

[Almost Famous]

What reasons did they give for not paying? There would have been reasons. No insurance company just refuses to pay without justifying their decision.

 

[The KEY]

It was to do with the definition of 'own' or 'any' occupation. the industry fund said he could work in another occupation (not the one he was qualified in) so they wouldn't pay.

The retail fund paid because he could no longer perform his own occupation.

 

[chooke]

It was to do with the definition of 'own' or 'any' occupation. the industry fund said he could work in another occupation (not the one he was qualified in) so they wouldn't pay.

The retail fund paid because he could no longer perform his own occupation.

This is not really and industry fund cf retail fund issue and it certainly wouldn't make sense to compromise your superannation choice because of anxillary insurance options which you can get outside the fund.

Types and levels of insurance offerings vary between funds irrespective of whether they are industry, retail, corporate or public sector funds. I for one have salary continuous insurance outside my super, a bit because of the occupation definition issue you raise but also because it is hard to find a super fund offering this type of insurance that goes beyond 2 years of claims. My policy will pay insurance SCI benefits all the way to retirement age and the cost (afer personal income tax deduction) is about equal to what it would be within superannuation environment.

 

[The KEY]

That's waht i'm saying read the fine print. On the other point it's better for MY situation to have all insurances within super for cashflow reasons, may not be the right choice for everyone. My income protection goes to age 65 (benefit period) and I think you'll find that most do these days

 

[4GIBBINS34]

And you sound like a union rep who believes the BS that industry funds spread.

I'm not even going to buy into this debate, because chumps like you are so convinced that industry funds are the best thing since sliced bread that you are unwilling to listen to reason.

Like I said in my previous post, if fees are your main concern, go ahead and stick to the "too good to be true" industry funds. I'm sure that 1% in fees difference will help you sleep better at night

Don't bother, you will never get through to these muppets!

Let them get ripped off blind.

 

[Papa G]

Have you ever wondered why industry funds who let's say have on average a 1% fee saving over retail funds are able to consistently beat all retail funds by the 3, 4, 5%? Unionists are better stock pickers? The 1% fee differential has a magical trickle down effect? The investment managers charge you less? No the answer is fund valuation techniques. "Alternate Investments" do not have daily valuations. They can be valued quarterly, half yearly, yearly or in some cases every 3 or 5 years. Now if your super fund is reporting returns based on valuations from 12 months ago, of cource your reported returns will be better. This is what industry funds do - this is why their returns seem much better than they actually are. This is why many maybe in for a rude shock and their propaganda machine may take a hit.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/time-bombs-ticking-away-20081202-6pdx.html

 

[Karl Pilkington]

This is not really and industry fund cf retail fund issue and it certainly wouldn't make sense to compromise your superannation choice because of anxillary insurance options which you can get outside the fund.

But the most tax effective way of paying the insurance is through the fund. Just another consideration your average joe won't think about, which is why its important to at least have access to a planner, even if its just fee for service.

Types and levels of insurance offerings vary between funds irrespective of whether they are industry, retail, corporate or public sector funds. I for one have salary continuous insurance outside my super, a bit because of the occupation definition issue you raise but also because it is hard to find a super fund offering this type of insurance that goes beyond 2 years of claims. My policy will pay insurance SCI benefits all the way to retirement age and the cost (afer personal income tax deduction) is about equal to what it would be within superannuation environment.

It isn't hard to find at all, Colonial First State retail do it, Asgard do it, MLC do it, AMP do it...

Might be hard to find an industry fund that does it though.

The best super set ups are usually a corporate fund set up through your employer, with an option to attach a planner if you want - Plum are a good example (by no means the only example) of a top quality fund with cheap insurance, good investment selection and good service.

Self Managed is really the best way if you've got the time and money to do it.

 

[Frodo]

All funds are there to make money for someone else.

retail funds are dirtied by trailing commissions

industry funds just pay their profits in wages, bonus's, perks etc,.

The whole super situation is in the same boat as financial planners.

YOU CAN'T TRUST THEM.