Dear Ms Nath,
It is really nice to see the puff piece here provided for the industry funds - but in stating raw (reported) performances you have totally missed the connection between what is reported - and what is fact. You state that the funds have returns for "Balanced " Funds for the period. One could assume that the general public is being conveniently massaged. A little conceptual commentary - the "balanced" Asset Allocation relates to the proportion of defensive assets vs growth assets. - and is relates to one measure of risk for the portfolio ie the more growth assets - the riskier. Curious when you look at the returns - with every fund in fact returning more that the ASX 200 for the same period - one can only be led to the conclusion that the risk taken by these portfolios - is in fact riskier than a Hi Growth - a fully listed share portfolio -with no defensive assets. that is, if the returns here exceed the ASX 200- then by definition, the portfolio must have a higher degree of risk than the ASX 200-. A headline rate of return is absolutely meaningless - (if not dishonest) - without the attendant level of risk taken to achieve these returns. I suggest you have been played - they are not balanced funds at all. The "investors'" money is being used for far significantly riskier activities. ( One could say - that they were fully invested in the Aus Stock market - because that is near half close to the total return of the accumulation index = S&P/ASX 200 Gross Total Return Index (XJT)