Add new comment

The MySuper changes are a bit like your Grandma trying to pump lollies into your kids - the best intentions but not necessarily the best way of going about things.

One of my clients set it out quite clearly - "they changed my super to lower fees. That's great but they took away my high-earning investment option into one of those average options". Yes they did. And the "imperative" to reduce fees impedes a client's willingness to stop the change happening. Funny that.

The primary fee change of course was the removal of ongoing commission to my business, which i happily pointed out to the client, and that is the real point of my adding my 1c worth in here.

A large part of the MySuper changes for retail funds is the removal of adviser commission - so the "study" would be inherently flawed for not recognising this. For those who question everything in the negative - this means that embedded services are being ignored in the comparison, which is clearly a flaw. If it is mentioned in the study and not mentioned by the spokesperson then we have a further problem.

For those who may be interested, a deeper look will sometimes show that certain retail funds have actually raised their fees for MySuper, after allowing for the impact of removal of adviser commissions.. bet that doesn't get much airplay.

Fee transparency discussions by the Industry Funds spokespersons are a non-issue until the day every member of an Industry Fund is able to compare within the industry fund group. Each industry fund website allows the public to compare that fund with a retail fund - but not with other competing industry funds. That is a closed shop, and contrary to the tone and intent of most discussion on fees.

The utter ridiculousness of public fee discussion in this area is frustrating.