Join up at Sportsbet - Click here


Forum Home Forum Home > Community - Public Forums > General
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Superannuation Investment Returns
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Click here for the Thoroughbred Village Home Page - Australia's Premier Online Horse Racing Community. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. Also follow @Villagebet on Twitter for racing tips. Sign up for the village newsletter by clicking here: Newsletter Signup. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.

Superannuation Investment Returns

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
Author
Message
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Superannuation Investment Returns
    Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 8:51am
Just an observation..
over the last 18 months, as an example.
With the fund that i'm a member of (aus super), again as an example.
 
these have been the returns from 01/01/2013 to 16/07/2014.
 
Balanced                                            23.03%
Capital Guaranteed                            4.06%
International Shares                           35.52%
International Sustainable Shares         44.8%
Cash                                                       4.18
 
(these rates are net of fees + taxes)
 
(Balanced is the default option..made up of about 60% shares + 40% more defensive options.)
 
 
Looking at the period from 01/ 01/ 2011 to 30/06/2012..
when figures were effected by the GFC..the returns were..
 
 
Balanced                                             3.14 %
Capital Guaranteed                            7.43 %
International Shares                           -1.08 %
International Sustainable Shares         2.6 %
Cash                                                      6.8%
 
Whilst shares didn't do well over this period you would still be a mile infrom
had you left it there all along.
I think a lot of people moved the $ into the safer options around 2012..+
have been much worse off since.
 
Gets moe complicated, but just want to get some opinions.
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links
Click here to grab your bonuses when you join up with Sportsbet.


Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:05am
It has been a good year for shares and superannuation portfolios; no doubt.

But you have to take it in consideration with the last 5 years which have been negative or null. Not just last year. Your Share portfolio is only making up for ground it lost b/w 2006-2011.

Plus Australian Superannuation schemes take out ridiculously high administration fees. They highest in the world.
Back to Top
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:15am
from what i can see (again only with this 1 fund)
b/w around july 2006 to july 2008 was the worst of it..
around a 40% loss for international shares..
 
so you are right my first date range was not very meaningful..
i know it's complicated.
 
+ on fees...industry funds are known to charge much lower fees than private funds..
whether the product / service is better with a private fund, is debatable.
 
 
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:17am
Fees should be irrelevant. It's the final return that is all that matters.
Back to Top
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:19am
yes..
 
+ the figures listed initially in the 1st post
are net of (after) fees + taxes..have been deducted already.
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:25am
Exactly. They give final returns so who cares what the fee is. I'll take a 20% net return with a 5% fee over a 5% net return with a 1% fee every day of the week.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:28am
Yes, but during the 2005-2011 time. Returns were negative and Fees were 8-12%. Not a good look.

Hence a lot of distrust with the industry.

A monkey could run at those type of portfolio losses at that time.

We were paying for expertise and getting none.
Back to Top
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:31am
Originally posted by Bright Day Bright Day wrote:

It has been a good year for shares and superannuation portfolios; no doubt.

But you have to take it in consideration with the last 5 years which have been negative or null. Not just last year. Your Share portfolio is only making up for ground it lost b/w 2006-2011.

Plus Australian Superannuation schemes take out ridiculously high administration fees. They highest in the world.
 
I dont think that's the case.
If you looked at figuers from 01/07/2007 to 30/06/2014 ..
comparing say property/cash to shares..i think shares would be well infront.
 
I'll try to find the figures or if anyone else can, that would be great.
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:41am
Originally posted by Bright Day Bright Day wrote:

Yes, but during the 2005-2011 time. Returns were negative and Fees were 8-12%. Not a good look.

Hence a lot of distrust with the industry.

A monkey could run at those type of portfolio losses at that time.

We were paying for expertise and getting none.




Which funds were charging 8-12% fees? Give us a link to this.

I'll save you trouble. The answer is none.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:56am
Mate, you can try and defend the industry as much as you like but in 2002, it was common practice.

Now thank goodness the industry has bitten the bullet and realised that it isn't caviar sandwiches for lunch every day.
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 9:57am
It was never common practice to charge 12% fees. If it was you'd be able to give up proof.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:18am
Look mate I was in the industry. I know what used to go on. I rode the halcyon days which we thought could never end. Record Stock market highs. Record highs out of work too.

We worked hard but we played even harder.

Someone had to pay for our fillet de Bouf and Coniac lunches. Our nightly visits to Goldfinger and our nose candy.

Here is an article from 2001 about the fees paid then.

Australians are paying up to three times more than they should for superannuation. Excessively high fees are seriously damaging their retirement balances and hurting taxpayers, who pay more for pensions when superannuation runs short. Reducing fees by half could save account holders $10 billion a year. It is the largest single opportunity for micro-economic reform in the Australian economy.

Australians on average pay fees of 12 per cent on their superannuation account balances, more than three times the median OECD rate.

On conservative assumptions that means a 50-year old Australian today will have his or her super balance reduced by almost $300,000 in fees (in today’s dollars) at retirement. A 30-year old will lose more than $650,000, or about a quarter of his or her total balance. Under a fairer fee structure, at least half that money could be saved.

These high fees are not justified by high returns – Australian funds that charge the highest fees consistently deliver lower returns than other funds once their fees are taken out.

Costs are too high because the system wrongly assumes that choice in the market will drive enough account holders to choose low-price funds, thereby forcing others to lower their fees. But this approach has not worked in Australia or anywhere in the world. Superannuation is inherently opaque and most people do not make an informed choice, instead paying into a default fund chosen by their employer.


sure the industry has cleaned itself up somewhat. But it had to!
Back to Top
Tuft_it_Tees View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuft_it_Tees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:24am
 Question : If Jesus had invested $1 at 4% per annum compound, so as to be cashed-up for the Second Coming, how much would he now have to re-distribute to the faithful ?
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:28am
Originally posted by Bright Day Bright Day wrote:

Look mate I was in the industry. I know what used to go on. I rode the halcyon days which we thought could never end. Record Stock market highs. Record highs out of work too.

We worked hard but we played even harder.

Someone had to pay for our fillet de Bouf and Coniac lunches. Our nightly visits to Goldfinger and our nose candy.

Here is an article from 2001 about the fees paid then.

Australians are paying up to three times more than they should for superannuation. Excessively high fees are seriously damaging their retirement balances and hurting taxpayers, who pay more for pensions when superannuation runs short. Reducing fees by half could save account holders $10 billion a year. It is the largest single opportunity for micro-economic reform in the Australian economy.

Australians on average pay fees of 12 per cent on their superannuation account balances, more than three times the median OECD rate.

On conservative assumptions that means a 50-year old Australian today will have his or her super balance reduced by almost $300,000 in fees (in today’s dollars) at retirement. A 30-year old will lose more than $650,000, or about a quarter of his or her total balance. Under a fairer fee structure, at least half that money could be saved.

These high fees are not justified by high returns – Australian funds that charge the highest fees consistently deliver lower returns than other funds once their fees are taken out.

Costs are too high because the system wrongly assumes that choice in the market will drive enough account holders to choose low-price funds, thereby forcing others to lower their fees. But this approach has not worked in Australia or anywhere in the world. Superannuation is inherently opaque and most people do not make an informed choice, instead paying into a default fund chosen by their employer.


sure the industry has cleaned itself up somewhat. But it had to!




How about giving a link to that article? 12% is rubbish and so is your claim that you worked in the industry. How do I know you never worked in the industry? Because I did previously and fees were NEVER anything like that level.

Try again fool.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:41am
Look I'm not arguing with you mate. I lived the life. People were skimmed fees that they didn't even realise they were paying I know how it was funded. It was outrageous. It made the Wolf of Wall Street look like a tea party.

We used to have hot and cold women coming into our rest rooms 24/7 while we played on the markets. The supply of coke was endless and the bonuses were so over the top, we felt like we were stealing.

I got set up for a number of lifetimes just by using a little bit of insider knowledge on stock rises and falls. But that is the way you did things in those days. There was no accountability. There were no guidelines or governance. Greed for want of a better word; was GOOD!

Fees reduced Supperannuation by $158 billion last year. So they are still too high imo. The competitive nature of the fees and charges is particularly significant given the smaller $ balances, relative to many other countries, held by many individuals in Australia – particularly in industry funds. Retail products offered on a group basis often have expenses around 8% of assets.

Retail products offered on an individual basis can have fees as low as 8% of assets for large balances, but generally have expenses in excess of 6.5% with expenses of 8.5% or more for small retail products distributed by way of an adviser or other network.

In addition, the complexity of some fee structures can make it difficult and costly for individuals to collect information on fees and to make comparisons. While financial planners can assist with considering available investment options and superannuation strategies, very often their own remuneration is one of the complicating factors in comparing fees and charges.

Administrative and investment fees and charges are also of considerable interest to policy-makers because they can have a significant impact on eventual retirement income. Calculations prepared by one researcher have shown fees reducing eventual retirement savings by between under 10% to over 25%, depending on the fee level concerned. However, on the other hand there are some that argue that higher fees can be a reward for better performance in regard to investment earnings.

But not in the early 2000s. We got the fees first then. And Joe Public was just a sucker to an industry he didn't really understand. Until the Crash of course. That changed everything.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:48am
Originally posted by Tuft_it_Tees Tuft_it_Tees wrote:

 Question : If Jesus had invested $1 at 4% per annum compound, so as to be cashed-up for the Second Coming, how much would he now have to re-distribute to the faithful ?



Jesus gave all his money to Caesar.



Bible > Luke > Chapter 20 > Verse 25









◄ Luke 20:25 ►






Parallel Verses

New International Version
He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

New Living Translation
"Well then," he said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."

English Standard Version
He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

King James Bible
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"Well then," He told them, "give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."

International Standard Version
So he told them, "Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

NET Bible
So he said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
He said to them, "Well, then give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God."

Jubilee Bible 2000
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's.

King James 2000 Bible
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's.

American King James Version
And he said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and to God the things which be God's.

American Standard Version
And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: and to God the things that are God's.

Darby Bible Translation
And he said to them, Pay therefore what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God.

English Revised Version
And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

Webster's Bible Translation
And he said to them, Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's.

Weymouth New Testament
"Pay therefore," He replied, "what is Caesar's to Caesar--and what is God's to God."

World English Bible
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Young's Literal Translation
and he said to them, 'Give back, therefore, the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;'

Parallel Commentaries
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

20:20-26 Those who are most crafty in their designs against Christ and his gospel, cannot hide them. He did not give a direct answer, but reproved them for offering to impose upon him; and they could not fasten upon any thing wherewith to stir up either the governor or the people against him. The wisdom which is from above, will direct all who teach the way of God truly, to avoid the snares laid for them by wicked men; and will teach our duty to God, to our rulers, and to all men, so clearly, that opposers will have no evil to say of us.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 25. - And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. As regarded the immediate issues the Lord's answer was in the affirmative: "Yes, it is lawful under the present circumstances to pay this tribute." The Roman money current in the land, bearing the image and title of the Caesar, bore perpetual witness to the fact that the rule of Rome was established and acknowledged by the Jewish people and their rulers. It was a well-known and acknowledged saying, that "he whose coin is current is king of the land." So the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides, centuries after, wrote, "Ubi-cunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro Domino agnoscup cake." The tribute imposed by the recognized sovereign ought certainly to be paid as a just debt; nor would this payment at all interfere with the people's discharging their duties God-ward. The tithes, tribute to the temple, the offerings enjoined by the Law they revered, - these ancient witnesses to the Divine sovereignty in Israel might and ought still to be rendered, as well as the higher obligations to the invisible King, such as faith, love, and obedience. Tribute to the Caesar, then, the acknowledged sovereign, in no way interfered with tribute to God. What belonged to Caesar should be given to him, and what belonged to God ought to be rendered likewise to him. Godet, in a long and able note, adds that Jesus would teach the turbulent Jewish people that the way to regain their theocratic independence was not to violate the duty of submission to Caesar by a revolutionary shaking off of his yoke, but to return to the faithful fulfilment of all duties toward God, "To render to God what is God's was the way for the people of God to obtain a new David instead of Caesar as their Lord. To the Pharisees and Zealots, 'Render unto Caesar;' to the Herodians, 'Render unto God.'" Well caught the great Christian teachers their Master's thought here in all their teaching respecting an institution such as slavery, in their injunctions concerning rigid and unswerving loyalty to established authority. So St. Paul: "Be subject to the powers... not only from fear of punishment, but also for conscience' sake" (Romans 13:1 and 1 Timothy).

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he said unto them, render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's,.... The Arabic version renders it, "give to the king what is the king's"; the tribute that was due to him; since they were under his government, and were protected by him, and traded with his money; the currency of which among them was an acknowledgment of him as their sovereign:

and unto God the things which be God's; which relate to his worship, honour, interest, and kingdom; See Gill on Matthew 22:21.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

25. things which be Cæsar's—Putting it in this general form, it was impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.

and unto God—How much there is in this profound but to them startling addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fulness, brevity, clearness, weight!
Back to Top
Tuft_it_Tees View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuft_it_Tees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:52am
Answer to my question, "If Jesus had invested $1 at 4% per annum compound, so as to be cashed-up for the Second Coming, how much would he now have to re-distribute to the faithful ?"
.........is, far more than the weight of the Earth in gold. Moral of the story is, the idea that even a seemingly modest annual compounding of a principal is sustainable, in perpetuity, is utterly wrong.
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 10:54am
Originally posted by Bright Day Bright Day wrote:

Look I'm not arguing with you mate. I lived the life. People were skimmed fees that they didn't even realise they were paying I know how it was funded. It was outrageous. It made the Wolf of Wall Street look like a tea party.

We used to have hot and cold women coming into our rest rooms 24/7 while we played on the markets. The supply of coke was endless and the bonuses were so over the top, we felt like we were stealing.

I got set up for a number of lifetimes just by using a little bit of insider knowledge on stock rises and falls. But that is the way you did things in those days. There was no accountability. There were no guidelines or governance. Greed for want of a better word; was GOOD!

Fees reduced Supperannuation by $158 billion last year. So they are still too high imo. The competitive nature of the fees and charges is particularly significant given the smaller $ balances, relative to many other countries, held by many individuals in Australia – particularly in industry funds. Retail products offered on a group basis often have expenses around 8% of assets.

Retail products offered on an individual basis can have fees as low as 8% of assets for large balances, but generally have expenses in excess of 6.5% with expenses of 8.5% or more for small retail products distributed by way of an adviser or other network.

In addition, the complexity of some fee structures can make it difficult and costly for individuals to collect information on fees and to make comparisons. While financial planners can assist with considering available investment options and superannuation strategies, very often their own remuneration is one of the complicating factors in comparing fees and charges.

Administrative and investment fees and charges are also of considerable interest to policy-makers because they can have a significant impact on eventual retirement income. Calculations prepared by one researcher have shown fees reducing eventual retirement savings by between under 10% to over 25%, depending on the fee level concerned. However, on the other hand there are some that argue that higher fees can be a reward for better performance in regard to investment earnings.

But not in the early 2000s. We got the fees first then. And Joe Public was just a sucker to an industry he didn't really understand. Until the Crash of course. That changed everything.






So you're not going to provide us with a link to the article then? Gee I wonder why!
How about I do it for you?


http://grattan.edu.au/publications/reports/post/super-sting-how-to-stop-australians-paying-too-much-for-superannuation/


Nice try deleting the decimal place between the 1 and the 2.

Try again numpty!
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:06am
Mate, if you read the article properly you know that 12% was nothing in the late 90% and early b200s and you know what, it didn't matter then because people had just moved from a very bland basic cash product to the idea of shares in their portfolio and they didn't know. They didn't know how easy it was for us traders to move their money around so they were making 40% interest. Sure that was the top end in very risky portfolios but at the time you had the whole IT start up company buble so it was nothing for a company share price to rise from 1c a share to $5 A SHARE. And we all got rich and fat and met a number of very pretty women because of it. So if we slugged blokes at 12% then they didn't care because they were still getting more plus they thought it was some sort of magic trick. Some sort of OMG illusion like the Wizard of Oz when all it was related to a bit of inside knowledge.

Mate, we used to go out to the strip clubs and sort nose candy with the regulators and also the blokes who were about to float their companies. How can you not get some insider trading. And no one cared. EVERYBODY was making money and the true Capitalistic system was working the way it should.

Then the US stuffed it all up. People who didn't know what they were doing got into the industry. Blokes who had no experience and hadn't trained. I remember once, a bloke who I went to school with who failed year 10 and was a part time plumber told me he was getting into the industry as a financial advisor. That is the moment I know we had jumped the Shark. For sure.

there were blokes who had no idea in the industry just pumping it up for all it was worth and like everything mankind has ever done; sooner or later it had to go down the gurgler.

Still I made my fortune and had my fun while the going was good.

Then there were 8 or so years of bleakness.

But hopefully if we don't have tooo many wars; the share market is coming back and it will be halcyon days once again.

Good luck to those investing. Cheers.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:08am
Originally posted by Tuft_it_Tees Tuft_it_Tees wrote:

Answer to my question, "If Jesus had invested $1 at 4% per annum compound, so as to be cashed-up for the Second Coming, how much would he now have to re-distribute to the faithful ?"
.........is, far more than the weight of the Earth in gold. Moral of the story is, the idea that even a seemingly modest annual compounding of a principal is sustainable, in perpetuity, is utterly wrong.


The whole point of the Christ metaphor; even if he himself never existed; is that God doesn't care about worldly things like money. He\It\Deity is all about being in the Now and Acceptance of what is!
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:08am
It takes a certain type of imbecile to continue the same argument even after being comprehensively dispatched into the grandstand. Carry on numpty, your clueless rambling are great for a laugh!
Back to Top
Tuft_it_Tees View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuft_it_Tees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:13am
It was simply a way of illustrating the principle that ongoing, real, compounding, safe increases in wealth are unsustainable, a lesson that remains to be learned by the many.  Nothing to do with religion or historical personalities.
Back to Top
Ecair Issoire View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 16584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ecair Issoire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:18am
" Costs are too high because the system wrongly assumes that choice in the market will drive enough account holders to choose low-price funds, thereby forcing others to lower their fees. But this approach has not worked in Australia or anywhere in the world. Superannuation is inherently opaque and most people do not make an informed choice, instead paying into a default fund chosen by their employer."

Good point..Bright day,
 
I agree that most people know very little about their super...myself included
until i started working for a fund.a few years back.....their shoulkd be more education about
something that is so important, imo.
Back to Top
Tuft_it_Tees View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 3691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuft_it_Tees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:20am
fund management fees in Australia are high by international standards, but don't approach BD's 10% extravaganza.
Back to Top
Bright Day View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 17 Apr 2014
Location: Vic
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bright Day Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jul 2014 at 11:31am
It depends on the customer and Superannuation Funds do stagger fees based on the amount of service they provide at the top end of the market. Look I have seen blokes who are happy to pay anything. And the Managers thought they could get Joe Public over a barrel and smash him. It was disgusting the way that people were treated by Superannuation funds as far as fees are concerned.

Écair Issoire, member interest in fees disclosed on member statements is heightened during times when investment earnings are low, and fees appear to be relatively high. In many cases concerns are further increased by the impact of contributions tax. In this regard, it needs to be noted that often the most significant charge made against a member’s account balance is the Commonwealth Government’s 15% tax on employer contributions to superannuation (with sometimes the 15% surcharge tax on top of that for high income earners and those who do not disclose a tax file number). Insurance premiums for death and disability cover also can be perceived, incorrectly, by some members who do not make an insurance claim as being an additional charge for no additional benefit. That said, for some individuals and for some superannuation products the level of administration and investment charges can be relatively high in comparison to fund earnings.

Complaints started to come from guys like me in the superannuation sector itself, normally in the context of one fund or category of funds claiming to be much more cost competitive than other funds. Generally it is personal superannuation products distributed by forprofit financial institutions that are the target of such criticisms. For instance, a number of industry funds have published comparisons of their fees and charges with those of competing master trusts. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) also has made adverse comments on the relative level of charges of retail superannuation products.

The prudential regulator for superannuation, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) publishes quarterly statistics drawn from a joint APRA and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey.

In a consumer choice environment, the disclosure model for superannuation products must ensure comparability of information as well as basic understanding of the material provided.

2. The results of the comprehension testing indicate that a high degree of regulatory prescription is likely be necessary to achieve the twin aims of comprehension and comparability.

3. The development of an effective disclosure model as the basis for such regulation must be performance based and user friendly , involving an intensive process of one on one testing for comprehension and comparability; and development of terminology and format drawn from such a testing process.

4. If across the board prescription based on the principles outlined above is not acceptable, such prescription should at least apply to all funds wishing to attract superannuation guarantee contributions under a choice of fund regime.

5. An extensive consumer education program is required around each of the main themes or issues covered in the disclosure document, such as fees and charges, investment choices and performance, availability of insurance, and how to compare such information from different funds.

6. Wherever possible, information provided by fund advisory or tele-services should use the same terminology as required in the standard disclosure document.
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: broome
Status: Offline
Points: 32329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2014 at 2:27pm
Just had a look at my super balance.

My industry fund made 12.6% last year, that will do me Smile
Winner of the TBV Champion Tipster Award
Back to Top
ExceedAndExcel View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 9541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExceedAndExcel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jul 2014 at 2:35pm
What happened to Bright Day? When I saw this thread pop up again I was hoping for more of his "12% fees" hilarity and copy & pasted material from other websites being passed off as his own work.
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: broome
Status: Offline
Points: 32329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2014 at 8:19pm
just when you're feeling very pleased with yourself and counting your gains, BANG.

the market tanks and your profit decreases by 50% in 2 days Cry
Winner of the TBV Champion Tipster Award
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: broome
Status: Offline
Points: 32329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2014 at 11:12am
your super would have gone down a lot in the last week.

recovered most of the losses in the last 2 days Smile

the stock market is crazy, I just don't get it, does anyone ?
Winner of the TBV Champion Tipster Award
Back to Top
James Bond Esq View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 13981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote James Bond Esq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2014 at 11:21am
To be actively involved in Superannuation, it is not something you can assess on a day to day operating level. The highs and lows will take place but remember, we are still playing catch up over the last few years. It is the long haul, the 25 year odyssey that we need to rap ourselves in. That is what Superannuation is all about. The day to day nuances of the ups and downs, if you worry about those, you will go nuts.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.