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

Australians lack preparation for retirement

Despite 25 years of compulsory superannuation in Australia, most people fail in preparing for retirement, according to the Retirement Readiness Report...more

Euroz to white label HUB24 platform offering

Diversified publicly-listed financial services firm, Euroz Limited has entered into a partnership with HUB24 to deliver a white label platform offerin...more

APRA challenges union/employer board nominations

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has sent a clear signal to superannuation funds that it is unhappy with the manner in which some...more

Author

Comments

Comments

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

you DO know what trollop means don't you?

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?

What's not included in their disclosed fees: cost of managing their direct property and Purchasing swaps from banks so they don't have to disclose fees(just to mention a couple). Industry Funds do themselves no favours, they advertise low fees but how about they become more transparent with their ACTUAL fees. Also the latest trick to get better performance against their peers is to call Growth assets defensive!!!!!

Add new comment