Add new comment

Submitted by Scott on Tue, 04/04/2017 - 16:49

I agree with the thrust of the article in that long term performance is too simple a metric to pick a super provider and wanted to call out two key points not specifically mentioned

1. Using the representative member balance of $2k provided by the PC does not correlate to the Performance by super ratings using a representative member balance of $50K due to the fixed dollar costs (member fees)
2. MySuper legislation means many funds have a little more than three years performance history, should the PC effectively exclude these funds as they will not have "long-term performance"? again another factor not specifically mentioned in the article.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months 1 week ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 1 week ago

Blue Owl Capital, a US asset manager with its eye on ‘marquee investors’ like super funds, has announced the appointment of a senior Future Fund executive as its newest m...

3 days 13 hours ago

Australia’s second-largest super fund has confirmed it is expanding its presence in the UK following significant investment in the region....

4 days 5 hours ago

While the Financial Advice Association Australia said it supports a performance testing regime “in principle”, it holds reservations about expanding this scope to retirem...

3 days 20 hours ago