changing super trust

[agitator]

i got some money lying in a super fund that i dont contribute to anymore because it performs so badly.

anyone know if it's possible to swap this money into another fund without penalty??
i know they changed the law recently but dont understand it yet.

used to be if you withdrew your funds early you got slugged a huge penalty.

 

[Papa G]

Ring them up and ask them if there is a withdrawal fee. They will be able to tell over the phone.

All you generally need is a rollover form but a lot of the industry funds, under the guise of protecting you from fraud will require identification, most probably certified, a strand of hair, blood and DNA samples and in extreme cases your first born.

Seriously, by law you don't need to provide identification but as I said, some industry funds make it extremely difficult for you to get your money out of them and work on the basis if they make hard for you transfer your funds, most people won't bother.

 

[1jasonoz]

Ring them up and ask them if there is a withdrawal fee. They will be able to tell over the phone.

All you generally need is a rollover form but a lot of the industry funds, under the guise of protecting you from fraud will require identification, most probably certified, a strand of hair, blood and DNA samples and in extreme cases your first born.

Seriously, by law you don't need to provide identification but as I said, some industry funds make it extremely difficult for you to get your money out of them and work on the basis if they make hard for you transfer your funds, most people won't bother.

Interesting the report about 6-12 months ago actually stated that retail funds where/are the problem super funds.

Seriously, by law you don't need to provide identification

It is a requirement of the law that you provide sufficent identification when attempting to transfer the money.

 

[Papa G]

Interesting the report about 6-12 months ago actually stated that retail funds where/are the problem super funds.

It is a requirement of the law that you provide sufficent identification when attempting to transfer the money.

What report? In my experience as long as a retail super fund has your signature on file which they can compare the rollover form signature with, the rollover will happen. Many industry funds require 3 certified copies of I.D. Sure i can probably understand 1, but 3! Do you know how difficult it is to try and steal somebody else's superannuation? So I put to you, why do they seem to make extra difficult for you to get your money out of them whereas retail funds do it with a minimum of fuss?

 

[Astro_]

What report? In my experience as long as a retail super fund has your signature on file which they can compare the rollover form signature with, the rollover will happen. Many industry funds require 3 certified copies of I.D. Sure i can probably understand 1, but 3! Do you know how difficult it is to try and steal somebody else's superannuation? So I put to you, why do they seem to make extra difficult for you to get your money out of them whereas retail funds do it with a minimum of fuss?

Probably just to pi$$ the planners off more than anything. Go see a financial planner and your guaranteed your super is going to end up in a retail master trust/wrap account. But hey, these kind of account are much more beneficial compared to industry funds.

 

[1jasonoz]

What report? In my experience as long as a retail super fund has your signature on file which they can compare the rollover form signature with, the rollover will happen. Many industry funds require 3 certified copies of I.D. Sure i can probably understand 1, but 3! Do you know how difficult it is to try and steal somebody else's superannuation? So I put to you, why do they seem to make extra difficult for you to get your money out of them whereas retail funds do it with a minimum of fuss?

What report?

There was a report about 12-> 18 months ago and had the likes of Virgin Super complaining that they had clients attempting to roll over their super into other funds and the retail funds kept demanding new forms, ID etc to delay them.

In my experience as long as a retail super fund has your signature on file which they can compare the rollover form signature with, the rollover will happen.

Retail funds do not simply roll over money based upon your signature; they have to pass the same 100 point ID test as all other financial institutions do.

Do you know how difficult it is to try and steal somebody else's superannuation?

Read about the CSS that almost got scammed out of $150 million by fraudsters for almost just relying upon a faxed letter from a group portraying themselves as one og the funds fund managers.

So I put to you, why do they seem to make extra difficult for you to get your money out of them whereas retail funds do it with a minimum of fuss

Thats your personal opinion actually.

Ive had a super fund that i have been attempting to roll over from for 14 years, and can't.

I could also go on about the numeruos occasions of retail super funds and financial planners but thats another subject.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Watchdog-warns-retail-super-funds/2005/06/05/1117910186748.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/money/end-of-the-industry-revolution/2006/06/13/1149964476552.html

 

[Papa G]

There was a report about 12-> 18 months ago and had the likes of Virgin Super complaining that they had clients attempting to roll over their super into other funds and the retail funds kept demanding new forms, ID etc to delay them.



Retail funds do not simply roll over money based upon your signature; they have to pass the same 100 point ID test as all other financial institutions do.



Read about the CSS that almost got scammed out of $150 million by fraudsters for almost just relying upon a faxed letter from a group portraying themselves as one og the funds fund managers.



Thats your personal opinion actually.

Ive had a super fund that i have been attempting to roll over from for 14 years, and can't.

I could also go on about the numeruos occasions of retail super funds and financial planners but thats another subject.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Watchdog-warns-retail-super-funds/2005/06/05/1117910186748.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/money/end-of-the-industry-revolution/2006/06/13/1149964476552.html

Vurgin Super? Hardly a group with longevity in the industry. Just another effort by Dickie Branson to get their name in the paper.

100 point id check is crap. I will declare I work in the industry and that is an utter nonsense.

Have not read the report about some money "almost" getting scammed by some mob pretending to be a funds manager, but from the scant info you have provided it does not seem feasible and to rollover money from someone's super fund you would basically have to steal their identity.

If you provide a fund with very little choice, poor insurance option in many cases and of course no service, then of course you can provide a low cost model. If people want this they should stick with industry funds.

Industry funds nowdays, I would almost suggest are less transparent with their fee structure. It is neccessary for all advisers now to diclose every single fee, even down to buy/sell spreads, something which industry funds would never do. They don't declare the funds they hold in reserve to smooth out rough years, they declare all funds go back to members yet they take on massive advertising campaigns, sponsor rugby league teams etc.

Industry funds have their place, but they are not the holier than thou alternative. This can always be assured when unions are involved.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

If you provide a fund with very little choice, poor insurance option in many cases and of course no service, then of course you can provide a low cost model. If people want this they should stick with industry funds.

Industry funds nowdays, I would almost suggest are less transparent with their fee structure. It is neccessary for all advisers now to diclose every single fee, even down to buy/sell spreads, something which industry funds would never do. They don't declare the funds they hold in reserve to smooth out rough years, they declare all funds go back to members yet they take on massive advertising campaigns, sponsor rugby league teams etc.

Industry funds have their place, but they are not the holier than thou alternative. This can always be assured when unions are involved.

The industry fund propaganda campaign ("compare the pair") and lob sided ASIC regulation of the superannuation industry has worked such a treat that many posters on here think retail funds are evil.

 

[1jasonoz]

Vurgin Super? Hardly a group with longevity in the industry. Just another effort by Dickie Branson to get their name in the paper.

100 point id check is crap. I will declare I work in the industry and that is an utter nonsense.

Have not read the report about some money "almost" getting scammed by some mob pretending to be a funds manager, but from the scant info you have provided it does not seem feasible and to rollover money from someone's super fund you would basically have to steal their identity.

If you provide a fund with very little choice, poor insurance option in many cases and of course no service, then of course you can provide a low cost model. If people want this they should stick with industry funds.

Industry funds nowdays, I would almost suggest are less transparent with their fee structure. It is neccessary for all advisers now to diclose every single fee, even down to buy/sell spreads, something which industry funds would never do. They don't declare the funds they hold in reserve to smooth out rough years, they declare all funds go back to members yet they take on massive advertising campaigns, sponsor rugby league teams etc.

Industry funds have their place, but they are not the holier than thou alternative. This can always be assured when unions are involved.

Vurgin Super? Hardly a group with longevity in the industry. Just another effort by Dickie Branson to get their name in the paper.

So they aren't are superfund then?

100 point id check is crap. I will declare I work in the industry and that is an utter nonsense.

I worked out pretty quickly you worked for a retail super fund from your post; lots of personal statements trying to pass them off as fact.

100 point ID check is crap; please spare me!! You stated that the only ID requirement to transfer money is simply a signature comparison; please tell that to someone who doesn't no what the truth is!!

Not onyl do super funds have to comply with the ID checks for the super industry, they also have ID requirements imposed upon them by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Act) and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2006 .

Failure to comply with these 2 Acts can result in civil penalties for those funds failing to comply with the ID requirements of the Acts.

Have not read the report about some money "almost" getting scammed by some mob pretending to be a funds manager, but from the scant info you have provided it does not seem feasible and to rollover money from someone's super fund you would basically have to steal their identity.

Not according to you; according to you the only requirement to transfer super money is a signature!!

The attempted fraud of $150 million in CSS super money by Russian mafia is before the courts right now.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...annuation-fraud/2005/08/16/1123958050448.html

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/transcript_1572.asp

If you provide a fund with very little choice, poor insurance option in many cases and of course no service, then of course you can provide a low cost model. If people want this they should stick with industry funds.

Personal opinion and wrong.

Industry funds nowdays, I would almost suggest are less transparent with their fee structure. It is neccessary for all advisers now to diclose every single fee, even down to buy/sell spreads, something which industry funds would never do.

See above

They don't declare the funds they hold in reserve to smooth out rough years, they declare all funds go back to members yet they take on massive advertising campaigns, sponsor rugby league teams etc.

It is illegal for Public offer industry funds to withhold funds to smooth out member returns; defined benefit closed industry funds can and do.

So industry funds shouldn't advertise their services!!!

Industry funds have their place, but they are not the holier than thou alternative. This can always be assured when unions are involved

Once again personal opinion.

daddy_4_eyes

The industry fund propaganda campaign ("compare the pair") and lob sided ASIC regulation of the superannuation industry has worked such a treat that many posters on here think retail funds are evil.

How does ASIC impose a lopsided regulation of the super industry?

Ive dealt with retail funds; ive continually had various banks offer me their services to transfer my assets into their banks. When it comes down to comparing my super fund to their's, the retail funds continually fall over hands down.

Retail funds are only in the industry for one thing; profit.

 

[deeman12]

This probably wont help, but i was told there was a loophole with superannuation, the loophole is you can take all the money out but you have to say that you will never work again, but you can work again if you spend all the money, so it really defeats the purpose.

 

[chooke]

The industry fund propaganda campaign ("compare the pair") and lob sided ASIC regulation of the superannuation industry has worked such a treat that many posters on here think retail funds are evil.

Not evil, just poor value for money. Shows that ASIC is doing its job in making us more financially literate. Why put money in a retail fund when they charge you more money and they don't have the investment returns you get in retail funds? We all now why commission salesmen (who call themselves planners) like retail funds. I agree with you 100% 1Jasonoz.