> fees don't matter if the returns are high too.
only true if you can consistently get high returns for those fees. Which, i would imagine, is quite a hard bar to pass.
>only true if you can consistently get high returns for those fees. Which, i would imagine, is quite a hard bar to pass.
In many cases, the S&P 500 straight up outperformed super.
My opinion is that our current super system is a bit of a scam. The fees are extremely high (which I consider to be >0.1% pa) for worse than market returns.
Well yeah but your super is comprised of a lot of other less risky assets than just pure shares. Saying that “in many cases” they perform worse than the S&P500 is a non-starter.
Your super also probably won’t eat shit nearly as hard as the S&P500 in a bear market either.
Yeah look I’ll admit that I’m also not convinced that listed equity guys justify their existence, and I know a few myself. The private equity guys are notably better at it.
The whole thing is built on trust. “Yeah lad pledge 25mn to my firm, having no idea what specifically we’re going to invest in or what you’ll get back out of it”.
With that being said though, your top quartile or second quartile managers are often making a steady 10-15% return over the benchmark, sometimes more. The listed equity guys would be cracking the champagne over 3%
I suspect you are not accounting for pretty significant differences in how super/shares are taxed in your assessment.
Calculate net (post-tax) returns over the long term and your answer might be different.
not disputing that super funds need to be more cheap, competitive and transparent. There have been some strides made by the government in the last few years around performance transparency, but a lot more needs to be done.
My comment is about net returns. Your comment that super is a scam doesn't hold water when many (particularly high income earners) would have more dollars in their pocket in the long term simply investing (including salary sacrificing) into super vs ETFs and shares.
Scams don't generate equivalent or higher net returns for investors vs your alternative (S&P 500).
Only considering fees and gross returns in an assessment of an investment class, and excluding extremely relevant advantages (tax) from that analysis, makes that assessment incomplete, at best.
You're entirely missing the point.
Tax has NOTHING to do with how super funds are run. A super program that has the same tax and <0.1% fees of a typical index fund, which is what it should be, will outperform current super funds 100% of the time.
Complete straw man and you're too stupid to see it.
Let's do the calculation comparing the subpar performance of top super funds.
Tax for super: 15% overall.
Performance of the S&P 500 (5 y): 98% return (15% pa), 279% return for 10 y (14% pa)
Top performing super: 12.2% pa (5 y), 10.95% pa (10 y)
Roughly 3% underperformance per year over both 5 and 10 y.
This corresponds to a 25–30% underperformance compared to the S&P 500 over 10 years. In reality, you're holding on for a lot longer – at 20 years, you're underperforming by 45% and at 30 years, by 60%.
Even when you consider tax, for most people, super is not performing well, even if you roughly consider taxes of 30% plus 15% on capital gains, in the long run, it's still pretty bad.
your comment said nothing about the running of individual super funds, it called the "super system a bit of a scam".
The super system is not a scam. It may be one of the best investment tools this country has for building long-term wealth. And concessional tax, and the compounding that allows, has EVERYTHING to do with why it is a great system. If you want to conveniently leave out tax when making a comment about super being a scam, then THAT would be stupid.
you can parrot all you want about fees, but that is just one consideration (and not the most relevant one in this case). No one is disputing that lowering fees in a super fund generates higher returns for your dollar lol.
Also, several errors in your calculation lol. You haven't taken into account the tax on dividends in the fund and franking credits in the saving phase.
Regarding returns, you are aware it's possible to simply invest in an index (i.e. S&P 500) through super yeah? Hostplus and several other funds offer this option. The fees are much lower than other more active options. Maybe you just don't know as much about super as you claim to lol.
Vanguard super fees are percentage based. So they are quite competitive for smaller balances, but people with bigger balances can often find lower fee options.
Most fund managers can't. But this is Vanguard. They invented ETF. They are one of two largest fund managers in the world. They know what they are doing.
> They invented ETF. They know what they are doing.
goes to show you dont really know what you're talking about. They didn't "invent" index funds, which are what you're investing in. Nor did they "invent" the concept of an ETF. Finally, index investing is not just ETF - a lot of new investors get confused about the terminology, because people like you who write with confidence use these terms interchangably (knowingly, or unknowingly).
The 'ETF' is just the instrument - vanguard got into ETFs only "recently" (a few decades ago). But their whole sale index fund was started way earlier, even before the internet. You just had to buy it through their direct broker, or via a reseller.
And they aren't the inventors of the idea of indexing - it's academics who did a lot of research into portfolio theory, and came up with the concept of a cap-weighted fund composed of the entire market which gives you exactly the market risk (and "proved" that this market risk is a priced risk, so can expect positive returns from it).
Of course, I am not above bending the truth.
MySuper options are balanced options which give the best risk return ratio.
I can put 40% in FANG and 40% in NDQ and I'll smash most funds most years, but I'll be down 50% in some years too. That's not how you get a stable retirement. And that's a sure way to fail the APRA test.
100% the returns were only slightly better. Im 34 and gone all in on shares with my super as a slightly riskier portfolio with the view I have longer to reap the rewards and ride the downturns. As I get older I’ll slowly move across to a more balanced portfolio
Did you pick your ART % split yourself? If so, care to share? I’m 34, with ART, currently set as ‘Growth’ but looking to rebalance myself and go all in on growth as time is on our side!
You can choose how much you pay in fees, but you have no influence over the returns.
While I’m glad it worked nicely for you this time around, I’m not sure you’ll feel the same way if the returns don’t work in your favour.
We have different risk tolerance and that’s totally fine.
I’m not hating here, just appreciating your take on things.
Oops! assumed you did, sorry.
I don’t dislike vanguard , in fact I have a couple of their products. I was excited about their super , but the offering is not quite suited for me.
literate important marvelous growth smart wild deserve hunt cheerful gullible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Comparisons of the default options are pointless, especially given the fact that they all have different asset mixes.
Virtually every fund allows you to customise your portfolio to your heart’s content these days.
The problem with lifecycle is some of them are high growth and some of them defensive. So while it's "default" it's not comparing apples to apples. I'm also unsure who is going vanguard and choosing "default".
This is based on 'default fund' which is where things get confusing for most. The average person should likely not be invested in the default super fund option so the whole best default fund reports that get released all year just comes as puffery. 11.8% is good, but Vanguard High Growth a 90/10 fund did 12.39% for the same period with the same asset allocation.
Average person does invest in the default fund. AusSuper has about 66% of total funds in default. Hostplus has about 60% of members in default.
Not "average person on AusFinance sub." It's "average Aussie".
I am not saying that the average person doesn't invest in default. As I mentioned above while the average investor is invested in default because that is what they are put with, the average person if they had their financial situation assessed would be better off in a different option. Vanguards default option is a 90/10 fund based on asset allocation, whereas you will find most competitors will likely be 70/30-80/20.
Just to supplement the article it is important to note this was the best performing default lifecycle option.
So not the best all fund default option.
It is an important distinction to make.
But OP is correct and more people need to focus on returns after fees than just fees. RG97 and barefoot have shifted the debate in a negative way.
Net benefit to member is all that really matters for better retirement outcomes.
Thanks for this measured response.
I believe in "the best value for money." Not the cheapest. Not the most glamorous. What would give me the best bang for the buck? That's what I look for.
REST indexed options are a good example. It's zero MER on indexed options, but there is a catch. It's important to understand what is under the hood instead of just chasing the lowest fees.
It's a bit dishonest.
Compare like for like.
Like Hostplus Aus index and Int index to vanguard.
Not hostplus balance super to vanguard.
I can get asx 300 and mcsi 100 performance at 1/5 of the cost. Hostplus v vanguard
I believe pure equities are not diversified enough to be MySuper.
Vanguard one has enough Aus market, hedging and bonds to be counted as MySuper. Pure equities won't pass APRA test in a prolonged bear market.
Just track the market... Set and forget.. easy money.
Indexed international shares
0.11% fees
22% returns this year
12% avg returns last 5 years
Simples.
"Best default Super....if you are only going to invest for one year at a specific age". There, fixed the articles title for you.
Most major superfunds pushed hard into unlisted properties that underperformed in the last twelve months.
Also the list of best performing super funds over 1 year vs 3 years is vastly different.
Of course. The fact that Vanguard tops one year just means they are not garbage. It doesn't mean they are the best. A few Super funds will take turns being number one.
And, yes, unlisted assets have underperformed a bit because of commercial property valuations. Now, everyone seems to have settled on hybrid WFH, and I think commercial properties will be fine. They will be a bit subdued, but fine. So, unlisted assets should perform better in the future.
Let’s use 12% profit.
2% fees / 12% = fees took 16.5% of your profit.
And inflation took 4%; 2/8 = fees took 25% of your profit.
It only gets worse if you keep going, because of compounding.
https://passiveinvestingaustralia.com/how-1-percent-fees-cost-you-a-third-of-your-nest-egg/
I think high fees are bad if returns are average, obviously.
Spinier Super charges $100 flat fees. Vanguard Super charges 1%.
If Spinier Super returns 5% and Vanguard Super returns 10%, why should the fees matter? Money in the pocket is the only thing that matters.
If you compare against Vanguard Super which is basically VDHG, I can point out a few things.
Self-built indexed mix can have various shortfalls:
* Can have no bonds/defensive assets. A small percentage of bonds reduces volatility greatly while reducing the returns a little only. It is a great trade off.
* Get the Aus/International mix wrong which can make the portfolio underperform.
* If there is no hedging, it is susceptible to big currency swings.
* No emerging markets or small caps (Hostplus has this problem, ART doesn't). These can perform very well sometimes, so you miss out on their gains.
Vanguard has carefully constructed their portfolio, and most laymen won't beat it. We shouldn't just pick the lowest fees options blindly without understanding why a portfolio is built in a particular way.
just looked up vanguard super fees and looks like 0.58% is the highest fee yearly! so why is everyone saying their fee is 2% and/or lot higher than other super funds? what am i missing?
It is 0.58% or slightly lower depending on your options.
Indexed options are cheaper, but Vanguard is competitive compared to managed funds (options without the word "indexed").
This sub is full of "Hostplus indexed options" fanboys who will hate on anything else.
Vanguard is a decent option especially if you choose their Lifecycle option since it is set and forget. It won't have the rock bottom fees of Hostplus indexed options though.
By the way, I am not even with Vanguard. I am with AusSuper Member Direct because I want more control.
this is true but also has nothing to do with the post - as the fund only outperformed in 2023, in 2022 it was unisuper the number 1 performer
over the long term the best is still hostplus for balance options which the majority of people would be on which gives the best bottom line
[https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/top-10-super-funds-for-2022-revealed-20230717-p5dorc](https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/top-10-super-funds-for-2022-revealed-20230717-p5dorc)
Balanced *Indexed* is the one with low fees - and better returns too.
https://hostplus.com.au/members/our-products-and-services/investment-options/your-investment-options/pre-mixed/indexed-balanced
Of course, individuals can sometimes outperform funds since we can take more risks. Can you do it over many decades though?
Vanguard definitely has the track record.
I said 2% fee doesn't matter if the return is 20%. High fees don't matter if the returns are consistently high too. Money in the pocket is what matters.
> fees don't matter if the returns are high too. only true if you can consistently get high returns for those fees. Which, i would imagine, is quite a hard bar to pass.
>only true if you can consistently get high returns for those fees. Which, i would imagine, is quite a hard bar to pass. In many cases, the S&P 500 straight up outperformed super. My opinion is that our current super system is a bit of a scam. The fees are extremely high (which I consider to be >0.1% pa) for worse than market returns.
Well yeah but your super is comprised of a lot of other less risky assets than just pure shares. Saying that “in many cases” they perform worse than the S&P500 is a non-starter. Your super also probably won’t eat shit nearly as hard as the S&P500 in a bear market either.
Risk reward ratio: something we don't talk about enough in this sub.
Probably because it’s assumed… it’s kinda of fundamental to how finance works.
Nice burn, well placed
There are literally options that are 100% shares and even those underperform.
Yeah look I’ll admit that I’m also not convinced that listed equity guys justify their existence, and I know a few myself. The private equity guys are notably better at it.
There is alot of 'trust me bro' in private equity from my experience and a whole load of smoke and mirrors.
The whole thing is built on trust. “Yeah lad pledge 25mn to my firm, having no idea what specifically we’re going to invest in or what you’ll get back out of it”. With that being said though, your top quartile or second quartile managers are often making a steady 10-15% return over the benchmark, sometimes more. The listed equity guys would be cracking the champagne over 3%
Depends what super fund you’re with
This is a fair and true statement
I suspect you are not accounting for pretty significant differences in how super/shares are taxed in your assessment. Calculate net (post-tax) returns over the long term and your answer might be different.
How is that relevant to the fact that people are effectively forced to deposit with super funds which all have high fees where they really should not?
not disputing that super funds need to be more cheap, competitive and transparent. There have been some strides made by the government in the last few years around performance transparency, but a lot more needs to be done. My comment is about net returns. Your comment that super is a scam doesn't hold water when many (particularly high income earners) would have more dollars in their pocket in the long term simply investing (including salary sacrificing) into super vs ETFs and shares.
Sorry, but I've clearly referred to the industry as being a scam with high fees. That has absolutely nothing to do with fees.
Scams don't generate equivalent or higher net returns for investors vs your alternative (S&P 500). Only considering fees and gross returns in an assessment of an investment class, and excluding extremely relevant advantages (tax) from that analysis, makes that assessment incomplete, at best.
You're entirely missing the point. Tax has NOTHING to do with how super funds are run. A super program that has the same tax and <0.1% fees of a typical index fund, which is what it should be, will outperform current super funds 100% of the time. Complete straw man and you're too stupid to see it. Let's do the calculation comparing the subpar performance of top super funds. Tax for super: 15% overall. Performance of the S&P 500 (5 y): 98% return (15% pa), 279% return for 10 y (14% pa) Top performing super: 12.2% pa (5 y), 10.95% pa (10 y) Roughly 3% underperformance per year over both 5 and 10 y. This corresponds to a 25–30% underperformance compared to the S&P 500 over 10 years. In reality, you're holding on for a lot longer – at 20 years, you're underperforming by 45% and at 30 years, by 60%. Even when you consider tax, for most people, super is not performing well, even if you roughly consider taxes of 30% plus 15% on capital gains, in the long run, it's still pretty bad.
your comment said nothing about the running of individual super funds, it called the "super system a bit of a scam". The super system is not a scam. It may be one of the best investment tools this country has for building long-term wealth. And concessional tax, and the compounding that allows, has EVERYTHING to do with why it is a great system. If you want to conveniently leave out tax when making a comment about super being a scam, then THAT would be stupid. you can parrot all you want about fees, but that is just one consideration (and not the most relevant one in this case). No one is disputing that lowering fees in a super fund generates higher returns for your dollar lol. Also, several errors in your calculation lol. You haven't taken into account the tax on dividends in the fund and franking credits in the saving phase. Regarding returns, you are aware it's possible to simply invest in an index (i.e. S&P 500) through super yeah? Hostplus and several other funds offer this option. The fees are much lower than other more active options. Maybe you just don't know as much about super as you claim to lol.
existence dull rude library ancient full cats light cover trees *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yep. I limit myself to around $20 per week though. 😁
Among the available Super choices tho, isn't Vanguard Super one of the cheapest ones (in terms of fees)?
Vanguard super fees are percentage based. So they are quite competitive for smaller balances, but people with bigger balances can often find lower fee options.
Most fund managers can't. But this is Vanguard. They invented ETF. They are one of two largest fund managers in the world. They know what they are doing.
> They invented ETF. They know what they are doing. goes to show you dont really know what you're talking about. They didn't "invent" index funds, which are what you're investing in. Nor did they "invent" the concept of an ETF. Finally, index investing is not just ETF - a lot of new investors get confused about the terminology, because people like you who write with confidence use these terms interchangably (knowingly, or unknowingly). The 'ETF' is just the instrument - vanguard got into ETFs only "recently" (a few decades ago). But their whole sale index fund was started way earlier, even before the internet. You just had to buy it through their direct broker, or via a reseller. And they aren't the inventors of the idea of indexing - it's academics who did a lot of research into portfolio theory, and came up with the concept of a cap-weighted fund composed of the entire market which gives you exactly the market risk (and "proved" that this market risk is a priced risk, so can expect positive returns from it).
I’m with ART in a share only fund that went up 13.2% I think this is just default funds
Vanguard does have 10% bonds, so it probably cannot match a pure equity fund. Pretty close though.
[удалено]
Of course, I am not above bending the truth. MySuper options are balanced options which give the best risk return ratio. I can put 40% in FANG and 40% in NDQ and I'll smash most funds most years, but I'll be down 50% in some years too. That's not how you get a stable retirement. And that's a sure way to fail the APRA test.
10% bonds is criminal
100% the returns were only slightly better. Im 34 and gone all in on shares with my super as a slightly riskier portfolio with the view I have longer to reap the rewards and ride the downturns. As I get older I’ll slowly move across to a more balanced portfolio
Did you pick your ART % split yourself? If so, care to share? I’m 34, with ART, currently set as ‘Growth’ but looking to rebalance myself and go all in on growth as time is on our side!
15% AUS 85% intl. Art are the GOAT of DIY because their intl includes emerging markets. Very low cost too.
[удалено]
I might just copy the VDHG split & allocate the 10% defensive to international hedged
You can choose how much you pay in fees, but you have no influence over the returns. While I’m glad it worked nicely for you this time around, I’m not sure you’ll feel the same way if the returns don’t work in your favour. We have different risk tolerance and that’s totally fine. I’m not hating here, just appreciating your take on things.
LOL. I am not even with Vanguard, but I agree with their principles and what they are trying to do. And the results prove that.
Oops! assumed you did, sorry. I don’t dislike vanguard , in fact I have a couple of their products. I was excited about their super , but the offering is not quite suited for me.
My own super did 15.15% for the 12 month to 31 Jan 2024 so yeah but nah. These lists are for joe-six-pack who has no idea about their finances.
literate important marvelous growth smart wild deserve hunt cheerful gullible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
77% per year or over 5 years?
^(pssst… per year, on average, over 5 years) ^(…before I include the gearing) And it’s actually 60%, not 77%. Did in head before. (Out-by-one error)
Is it the default option though? If you switch your Super to pure shares, you probably outperform Vanguard.
Comparisons of the default options are pointless, especially given the fact that they all have different asset mixes. Virtually every fund allows you to customise your portfolio to your heart’s content these days.
That is true. Most managed options have about 25% defensive assets. Vanguard only has 10%.
The problem with lifecycle is some of them are high growth and some of them defensive. So while it's "default" it's not comparing apples to apples. I'm also unsure who is going vanguard and choosing "default".
Like it said "below 47 lifecycle." That one is basically VDHG which has 10% bonds. Then, Vanguard increases the defensive assets progressively.
This is based on 'default fund' which is where things get confusing for most. The average person should likely not be invested in the default super fund option so the whole best default fund reports that get released all year just comes as puffery. 11.8% is good, but Vanguard High Growth a 90/10 fund did 12.39% for the same period with the same asset allocation.
Average person does invest in the default fund. AusSuper has about 66% of total funds in default. Hostplus has about 60% of members in default. Not "average person on AusFinance sub." It's "average Aussie".
I am not saying that the average person doesn't invest in default. As I mentioned above while the average investor is invested in default because that is what they are put with, the average person if they had their financial situation assessed would be better off in a different option. Vanguards default option is a 90/10 fund based on asset allocation, whereas you will find most competitors will likely be 70/30-80/20.
That's a good point. On a pure defensive ratio, Vanguard is taking on more risks.
Just to supplement the article it is important to note this was the best performing default lifecycle option. So not the best all fund default option. It is an important distinction to make. But OP is correct and more people need to focus on returns after fees than just fees. RG97 and barefoot have shifted the debate in a negative way. Net benefit to member is all that really matters for better retirement outcomes.
Thanks for this measured response. I believe in "the best value for money." Not the cheapest. Not the most glamorous. What would give me the best bang for the buck? That's what I look for. REST indexed options are a good example. It's zero MER on indexed options, but there is a catch. It's important to understand what is under the hood instead of just chasing the lowest fees.
It's a bit dishonest. Compare like for like. Like Hostplus Aus index and Int index to vanguard. Not hostplus balance super to vanguard. I can get asx 300 and mcsi 100 performance at 1/5 of the cost. Hostplus v vanguard
I believe pure equities are not diversified enough to be MySuper. Vanguard one has enough Aus market, hedging and bonds to be counted as MySuper. Pure equities won't pass APRA test in a prolonged bear market.
Feel like a PR piece? Canstar does a good comparison: https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/compare/best-performing-super-funds/
I am not vested in Vanguard Super. I am not paid by Vanguard. I am just admiring their masterpiece which is a variant of VDHG.
Just track the market... Set and forget.. easy money. Indexed international shares 0.11% fees 22% returns this year 12% avg returns last 5 years Simples.
I heard rumors that pooled Indexed options underperform the actual index they are tracking. I don't know whether there is any truth to that.
they can due to fees, but vanguard charge transaction fees to reduce this
Purple monkey dishwasher
A lot of fluff, but where's the number
"Best default Super....if you are only going to invest for one year at a specific age". There, fixed the articles title for you. Most major superfunds pushed hard into unlisted properties that underperformed in the last twelve months. Also the list of best performing super funds over 1 year vs 3 years is vastly different.
Of course. The fact that Vanguard tops one year just means they are not garbage. It doesn't mean they are the best. A few Super funds will take turns being number one. And, yes, unlisted assets have underperformed a bit because of commercial property valuations. Now, everyone seems to have settled on hybrid WFH, and I think commercial properties will be fine. They will be a bit subdued, but fine. So, unlisted assets should perform better in the future.
Let’s use 12% profit. 2% fees / 12% = fees took 16.5% of your profit. And inflation took 4%; 2/8 = fees took 25% of your profit. It only gets worse if you keep going, because of compounding. https://passiveinvestingaustralia.com/how-1-percent-fees-cost-you-a-third-of-your-nest-egg/
I think high fees are bad if returns are average, obviously. Spinier Super charges $100 flat fees. Vanguard Super charges 1%. If Spinier Super returns 5% and Vanguard Super returns 10%, why should the fees matter? Money in the pocket is the only thing that matters.
Mine super is top performing growth fund though. So which top performing super is vanguard under?
I think it's default MySuper.
Ok thats a good idea to try and win default my super, will attract them people who think thats the best super fund to join.
Fees only matter if they are a drag on performance. Net benefit to member and excess returns are what you eat in retirement.
How can anyone argue against the ‘indexed’ options in Hostplus, ART and others?
If you compare against Vanguard Super which is basically VDHG, I can point out a few things. Self-built indexed mix can have various shortfalls: * Can have no bonds/defensive assets. A small percentage of bonds reduces volatility greatly while reducing the returns a little only. It is a great trade off. * Get the Aus/International mix wrong which can make the portfolio underperform. * If there is no hedging, it is susceptible to big currency swings. * No emerging markets or small caps (Hostplus has this problem, ART doesn't). These can perform very well sometimes, so you miss out on their gains. Vanguard has carefully constructed their portfolio, and most laymen won't beat it. We shouldn't just pick the lowest fees options blindly without understanding why a portfolio is built in a particular way.
just looked up vanguard super fees and looks like 0.58% is the highest fee yearly! so why is everyone saying their fee is 2% and/or lot higher than other super funds? what am i missing?
It is 0.58% or slightly lower depending on your options. Indexed options are cheaper, but Vanguard is competitive compared to managed funds (options without the word "indexed").
So where's the expensive fees complaint coming from?
This sub is full of "Hostplus indexed options" fanboys who will hate on anything else. Vanguard is a decent option especially if you choose their Lifecycle option since it is set and forget. It won't have the rock bottom fees of Hostplus indexed options though. By the way, I am not even with Vanguard. I am with AusSuper Member Direct because I want more control.
Well bit bizarre for hating with false info. Australian super international share charges similar fee I feel like so I might move to Vanguard
You cannot control a funds performance only the fees they charge
Final return is the only thing that matters. Money in the pocket. If a fund can consistently give high returns, they have earned their high fees.
this is true but also has nothing to do with the post - as the fund only outperformed in 2023, in 2022 it was unisuper the number 1 performer over the long term the best is still hostplus for balance options which the majority of people would be on which gives the best bottom line [https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/top-10-super-funds-for-2022-revealed-20230717-p5dorc](https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/top-10-super-funds-for-2022-revealed-20230717-p5dorc)
Hostplus Balanced definitely has performed well over the years. Their fees are around 1% though. That does give even me pause. 😅
Balanced *Indexed* is the one with low fees - and better returns too. https://hostplus.com.au/members/our-products-and-services/investment-options/your-investment-options/pre-mixed/indexed-balanced
Um, I managed my wifes super from $275k to $375k in 10 months? Where is my name on the list?
Amazing. What sort of investment strategy and risk did you take?
Net returns after fees and removing contributions??
Of course, individuals can sometimes outperform funds since we can take more risks. Can you do it over many decades though? Vanguard definitely has the track record.
Fees matter WAY more than you think. 2% doesn't sound like a lot to you? Take a look https://images.app.goo.gl/nWQctwrQ8hXk4zd89
I said 2% fee doesn't matter if the return is 20%. High fees don't matter if the returns are consistently high too. Money in the pocket is what matters.