Average industry super member $2,000 a year better off

The average industry superannuation fund member is around $2,000 a year better off than their retail counterparts, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).

ISA pointed to SuperRatings data that found that, on average, 16 industry super funds outperformed 77 retail super funds over a 10-year period after fees had been deducted from investment returns.

ISA’s ‘compare the pair’ model found that a sales representative with around $75,000 in super and earning the average salary in 2008 was around $2,000 a year better off if they had their super in the average industry super fund.

Related News:

ISA director of public affairs, Matt Linden, said: “Using a net benefit, or after fee calculation, helps demonstrate to consumers how hard their fund is working for them after everything is taken into account”.

Linden noted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s)  new fee disclosure arrangements would not impact the model as the comparisons had been returns net of all fees and costs.

Related Content

Treasury apportions equal guilt in superannuation

A key Senate Committee has been told it would be wrong to single out retail superannuation funds with respect to misconduct, with Treasury officials a...more

SMSF contributions highest since 2009

The average self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) contribution amount tripled from $9,138 to $32,055 in the June 2017 quarter, according to SuperCon...more

ClearView calls for ‘opt-in’ for group life

Insurer ClearView has told the Productivity Commission (PC) that the superannuation industry should be made to move to an ‘opt-in’ system for grou...more




Industry super funds don't report returns net of their Member Fee's. While these fees are relatively modest amounts they do have an impact on returns and particularly for smaller account balances. They report the return the investment option generated over the course of the selected time period, it doesn't actually reflect the return the individual member received when you take into account the timing of contributions and deducting the member fee.

They also don't show transparency of investments, so how do you know the 'returns' are real and not the world's largest ponzi? Not to mention the issue around asset allocations being far too aggressive, or the hidden 'indirect member fees' only obliquely reported in the funds financials, not the member statements.

Horse shit from ISA once again sadly the MP's believe this trollop

I object to the "average" being used. No-one should be treated as an average, people should be making the most of their individual positions. And with the thousands of funds available, what are they choosing to compare to?

Add new comment