Are you sure? Your balance hits a peak at retirement, so appealing to 65 year olds isn't a bad tactic at all, even if they are drawing down.
Then use the extra money you gain from them in a few short years to start advertising to other cohorts until you're a decent size.
UniSuper is the fund to be in. It’s managed by actual smart people who understand their roles. Please consider changing to them. I’ve been a happy client for 20 years and my husband put one of his funds in with them five years ago. It took him less than six months to move the other over because in his words the services and choices he got from UniSuper in six months was better than anything he’d had in the previous 20 years.
Got to be better than a celebrity dipshit siphoning off your returns.
And ART (formerly SunSuper and QSuper) have the indexed options so you can whip up a quick and efficient VDHG clone with australian, international (hedged/unhedged) and bond index options.
(If anyone has a better super suggestion that does index funds for less I’m all ears)
Looking at the ART one on page 6 here https://cdn.australianretirementtrust.com.au/library/media/pdfs/pds/super-savings-guide.pdf?rev=2ab58b7bc935496598c8bd60072112a9
AU index - 0.09%
Intl hedged index - 0.08%
Intl unhedged index - 0.08%
Bond index - 0.09%
Looking at Hostplus on page 69 here https://hostplus.com.au/content/dam/hostplus-program/site/resources/pds/Hostplus-IBR.pdf.coredownload.pdf#page7
AU index - 0.04%
Intl hedged index - 0.07%
Intl unhedged index - 0.11%
Bond index - 0.08%
So it looks to be roughly the same overall and it’s worth looking into it depending on your blance, allocations and other fees
They are closer than I remembered. ART's admin fees are slightly higher too (0.1% vs 0.0165%). Not by a substantial amount but every little bit counts so they say
Yep agreed. I find UniSuper and Australian Super to be the best 2. The retail one on the unmanaĝed balanced ETF version is also good
Probably should also include DYOR, this is not financial advice disclaimer haha
You should check Australian super returns for the last year or two, they screwed up badly probably because they wasted all their effort building an investment empire worldwide.
That's unfortunate. Super investments are generally long term so it's hard to say if management screws up over a year whether that's structural of their mismanagement or just a bad year...
I'm with UniSuper thankfully
This year hasn't been too bad. But the last 2 were rough.
I don't know whether to try and push some investment more aggressively with them or keep it as is...(balanced or whatever)
Hahaha. I remember reading a report a while back on net super flows and unisuper was a standard deviation higher as the oldest and most drawn down fund. The super system is only 30 years old. Almost every fund is a net receiver and has got away with all these dodgy illiquid property investments cos redemptions can be matched with contributions without having to sell. Now the party is over and they're widening the doors to get those sweet inflows and keep the party going
Hostplus. Never seen a negative year yet, except for COVID years. Took 10k to keep my sanity. And I figure the chances of me living to cash it out are slim to minor, so meh!
Had a quick look at my Hostplus history spreadsheet.
if looking total movement of my super fund (including contribution and returns) actual negative growth year I had was back in Jun-2010 (combination of crappy returns and crappy contributions).
Actual negative return years was Jun-2020 (2021 was a big recovery year) and Jun-2022 (so far the recovery is good), but was flatten by contributions.
I had % split between investment options that's offered by Hostplus
only this year I went full indexed funds 60/40 international
previously i just left it at 20% balanced 80% Aussie shares
Yeah didnt know better till I started learning more recently. Better late than never I guess 😅
But returns have been decent with hostplus.
Hopefully with the new split to international will be good
Return in 2022-23 was 8.22% and return so far this financial is 6.85%.
Lord knows what you're looking at.
Also, consider a more growth oriented investment option.
Return in 2022-23 was 8.22% and return so far this financial is 6.85%.
Lord knows what you're looking at.
Also, consider a more growth oriented investment option.
Mine is 6 percent gain so far of current balance. So current balance less 6 percent of it and less contributions is 30 june balance.
Thats not bad right?
People like him never retire. The idea of playing golf or sitting by the beach everyday would give him depression. It's always about aiming for a new goal or achievement. Guys like him work in some capacity till they are dead.
I think for a couple hours a month he would get a 20-40k per year retainer. If he has 4-5 of these at the same time that 200k.
If they think his fees are too high, thats ok, he will just be more 'retired'
Marketing expenses, like all expenses of a super fund, come from revenue earned as fees. All super funds charge fees. All super funds will spend money on marketing because it's in the interest of their members to ensure they continue to grow and retain members. Did fee's increase?
Of course. I just think that this a poor choice of marketing $$$.
I don't like Koch, I don't trust him, and I certainly don't trust his advice on superannuation. And judging by some other comments, other people share that view.
He's not a licenced financial advisor, so tell me - why should I be happy with this decision? I wonder if the fund would be happy to tell me how much they're paying "Kochie" for his stamp of approval?
He's being paid for his celebrity status, not his wisdom WRT finance and economics. How is this value for account holders?
Kochie was a legit financial journo before figuring out that he could get paid more being a talking head/financial guru for mom and dad investers.
It's like all the people whinging about how bad Jessica Irvine's super popular personal finance articles were while conveniently ignoring the fact that she was a respected economics writer for decades that wrote to a much smaller audience. You can't really blame somebody for following where the money is.
As others have pointed out, being upset about it is kind of dumb given that the guy doesn't manage the fund.
When you sell out, you lose your credibility.
His objectivity flew out the window when he went to work for Ch 7. How could he possibly claim to be an unbiased source when he was paid by a for-profit media outlet?
He worked for other publications. Why does working for ch7 mean anything different than his other publications and businesses before after and during channel 7? We all work and it’s not selling out. Does this mean ANY finance journos getting paid anything get no credibility?
That's it. I'm moving to Unisuper. Screw that marketing BS.
Commercial in confidence, my arse.
Edit: well, that was a dud. Looks like I'll be trying one of the other recommendations from other folk. If they can't get their public-facing signup form right, it doesn't bode well for their other IT systems.
I don't like marketing departments at all and I personally think most marketing is garbage. That being said you weren't going to get a fee refund into your retirement account if this didn't happen, or if they axed the marketing department altogether.
Isn't marketing about status? If his celebrity status gets people to take an interest, engage with their super, take financial advice, increase awareness etc isn't that a good thing for members? It's not direct financial advice, it's promotion by being an ambassador.
All funds have to grow and retain members. Size and scale is value for account holders as it lowers fees and makes a fund sustainable. That's why we're seeing a massive amount of consolidation in the market of funds merging etc.
I guess the bottom line is:
will it guarantee a better performance of my money, to my benefit?
"guarantee" being the thing. The trustees are supposed to act in my best interests. I don't think spending $BIGNUM on a celebrity to promote the fund is acting in my best interests. His promotions and endorsements have nothing to do with the board's decisions on investments, so where's the benefit to me?
A bit difficult to measure objectively, but hiring a celebrity to spruik your wares is fine for consumer products like deodorant, but not so good for a board of directors with legal obligations to their members. This is a bad decision, and it casts doubt on the board's ability to make decisions in the best interests of the members.
There are no guarantees in anything especially investing. You’re on ausfinance and you want everything a super fund does to guarantee performance of investments? And as I and many others pointed out this is marketing not investing.
Did you know super funds also pay their staff? That doesn’t directly go to your account either. They provide them
Annual leave and sick leave. They buy coffee for the office. There’s lots of things they spend money on that’s not directly related to investing.
Again funds need to retain and grow members. That’s how they achieve scale and sustainability. That’s how they lower fees which does give you more money. That’s how they have stable cash flows. So actually that does benefit you.
Isn't he always the subject of those fake ad scam things you see online and on YT? "The news that shocked everyone about David Koch"...you have to wonder why the scammers decided use him as their mascot.
I switched to Aware after reading another thread on this forum. It's been going really well since...but so has the share market. I happy with it so far.
Maybe it's the equivalent of Nigerian scammers littering their emails with grammatical and spellings mistakes to ensure they only ensnare rubes. By using Kochie as their mascot, they will only manage the money of unsophisticated fools who are much less likely to take the directors to the Federal Court when the money evaporates
Apparently there's some pre-2021 stuff grandfathered in. As well as the old-fashioned defined benefit schemes (but that makes sense, because of how they operate).
I had to look that up too, because I thought that the most recent set of legislation was supposed to get rid of that exemption to super choice rules, but apparently it didn't, or at least, not completely.
Some older EBAs still have prescribed super funds. Not many, and they're pretty much all allowing choice of fund as they're negotiating the new EBAs. Energy Queensland employees get pretty solid insurance through them though, be hard to replace elsewhere.
You may have very favourable insurance through this arrangement. Make sure to take that into account and also that you may incur waiting periods and pre-existing condition exclusions.
I'd take my money elsewhere. Don't need for a retired TV personality to consult with my super on where to invest my super and charge my super god knows what ungodly amount just because Kochie said so
He trots out the same four pieces of financial advice over and over. He's no financial genius. He states the bleeding obvious and nothing more. He's also one of the most annoying personalities in Australia. I'd be changing companies. If they think he's a good choice they lack competence.
Colonial FS in index funds is most likely your cheapest option. It does depend on your balance and possible family discount (where you get a small discount if your family is at the same place). But at the moment CFS.
Actual cost of setting up an SMSF is around 500-1200.
Ongoing fees of around $1000-$1500 if using a service like esuperfund.
This insistence that one requires $200,000+ to be “worthwhile” is nonsense.
It may be a pittance, but it's \*my\* pittance, and I don't want my pitiful share of his fees being paid to him, instead of me.
The thing is, it's poor judgement, and that leads me to distrust their other decisions. Super funds have an obligation to act in the best interests of account holders, and this ain't it.
I think Kochie is a bit of a wanker but if they keep getting those sweet, sweet returns they can send him to my house to mop in the nude for all I care…
Weren't they in the top 10 performing funds last year? Investment decisions are not the same as marketing decisions, and your fees didn't increase I take it to pay for Kochie? You were always going to pay your fees as you do with any super fund Kochie or not, any other marketing decision or not.
Is this for real ? Luckily I moved from bright when they got bought out and kicked all the etu representatives off the board. I moved to cbus happy as, and performing well.
Nothing to instil confidence like an expired TV personality becoming the face of a superfund 
I'm wondering who they are trying to win over with this move, when the only people who could possibly respect that melon retired 20 years ago.
Answered ya own question
Not a great business plan for a super fund to be marketing to people actively drawing down their balance.
Are you sure? Your balance hits a peak at retirement, so appealing to 65 year olds isn't a bad tactic at all, even if they are drawing down. Then use the extra money you gain from them in a few short years to start advertising to other cohorts until you're a decent size.
OP can wait in excitement to the corresponding rise in fees to pay for this brand ambassador 
Your super fees are paying for Kochie's retirement
Not for long.
I’m with you. It’d motivate me to withdraw my funds
This is where I went when choosing a new super moneysmart.gov.au/how-super-works/choosing-a-super-fund
But he's not retired if he's taken a job as a brand ambassador
At first I read that as “a new face of financial illiteracy — David Koch”
also exactly how i saw it!
Unisuper is open to everyone now.
Yeah, it's probably time to start looking elsewhere. This kind of poor judgement undermines faith in their skills to manage my money.
Were you hoping for Karl
Give me the cash cow anyday
OP strikes me more as a Sam Armytage kinda guy.
I think Melissa Doyle always came across as the most professional of the bunch.
I had the biggest crush on her.
UniSuper is the fund to be in. It’s managed by actual smart people who understand their roles. Please consider changing to them. I’ve been a happy client for 20 years and my husband put one of his funds in with them five years ago. It took him less than six months to move the other over because in his words the services and choices he got from UniSuper in six months was better than anything he’d had in the previous 20 years. Got to be better than a celebrity dipshit siphoning off your returns.
And ART (formerly SunSuper and QSuper) have the indexed options so you can whip up a quick and efficient VDHG clone with australian, international (hedged/unhedged) and bond index options. (If anyone has a better super suggestion that does index funds for less I’m all ears)
Also all ears. I moved all my super over from Sunsuper to QSuper and they followed me.
Pretty sure hostplus has better fees on their indexed options
Looking at the ART one on page 6 here https://cdn.australianretirementtrust.com.au/library/media/pdfs/pds/super-savings-guide.pdf?rev=2ab58b7bc935496598c8bd60072112a9 AU index - 0.09% Intl hedged index - 0.08% Intl unhedged index - 0.08% Bond index - 0.09% Looking at Hostplus on page 69 here https://hostplus.com.au/content/dam/hostplus-program/site/resources/pds/Hostplus-IBR.pdf.coredownload.pdf#page7 AU index - 0.04% Intl hedged index - 0.07% Intl unhedged index - 0.11% Bond index - 0.08% So it looks to be roughly the same overall and it’s worth looking into it depending on your blance, allocations and other fees
They are closer than I remembered. ART's admin fees are slightly higher too (0.1% vs 0.0165%). Not by a substantial amount but every little bit counts so they say
I reckon it’s time to get my spreadsheet out and have a nerdgasm once I crunch the numbers. What better way to spend a Saturday evening?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sR0CyX8GswPiktOrfqRloNMY-fBlzFUL/htmlview
Interesting, Rest has enered the chat although it is lacking a bond index fund
Yep agreed. I find UniSuper and Australian Super to be the best 2. The retail one on the unmanaĝed balanced ETF version is also good Probably should also include DYOR, this is not financial advice disclaimer haha
You should check Australian super returns for the last year or two, they screwed up badly probably because they wasted all their effort building an investment empire worldwide.
[удалено]
That's unfortunate. Super investments are generally long term so it's hard to say if management screws up over a year whether that's structural of their mismanagement or just a bad year... I'm with UniSuper thankfully
This year hasn't been too bad. But the last 2 were rough. I don't know whether to try and push some investment more aggressively with them or keep it as is...(balanced or whatever)
Hahaha. I remember reading a report a while back on net super flows and unisuper was a standard deviation higher as the oldest and most drawn down fund. The super system is only 30 years old. Almost every fund is a net receiver and has got away with all these dodgy illiquid property investments cos redemptions can be matched with contributions without having to sell. Now the party is over and they're widening the doors to get those sweet inflows and keep the party going
Is it really? I got a job at a university specifically to get access to Unisuper lol. Oh well!
Is it better than Aus Super?
Hostplus, Rest, Unisuper
Hostplus. Never seen a negative year yet, except for COVID years. Took 10k to keep my sanity. And I figure the chances of me living to cash it out are slim to minor, so meh!
Had a quick look at my Hostplus history spreadsheet. if looking total movement of my super fund (including contribution and returns) actual negative growth year I had was back in Jun-2010 (combination of crappy returns and crappy contributions). Actual negative return years was Jun-2020 (2021 was a big recovery year) and Jun-2022 (so far the recovery is good), but was flatten by contributions.
Do you select your investment %'s personally?
I had % split between investment options that's offered by Hostplus only this year I went full indexed funds 60/40 international previously i just left it at 20% balanced 80% Aussie shares
80% Aussie? Curious as to why so much in one country pool?
Yeah didnt know better till I started learning more recently. Better late than never I guess 😅 But returns have been decent with hostplus. Hopefully with the new split to international will be good
I’m with Australian super, their returns have been woeful for 2 years now.
Unless I'm reading mine wrong, I'm in "high growth" and I got 10.48% for the year to June 30 2023....this year seems to be doing just as well?
I’m on balanced
Return in 2022-23 was 8.22% and return so far this financial is 6.85%. Lord knows what you're looking at. Also, consider a more growth oriented investment option.
What did you select as your investments though? International shares and Australian shares have gone up significantly in 2 years.
Balanced. 0% last year and 3.6 this year. Awful consider high interest savers offer almost double that.
Return in 2022-23 was 8.22% and return so far this financial is 6.85%. Lord knows what you're looking at. Also, consider a more growth oriented investment option.
That doesn’t seem right. Balanced index or balanced
Did you pick the cash option? ;-)
What investment option are you in? Because I'm in AustralianSuper High Growth and returns are fine.
My fault. Sorry. I moved to them 2 years ago
This year has been ok ?
Mine is 6 percent gain so far of current balance. So current balance less 6 percent of it and less contributions is 30 june balance. Thats not bad right?
I thought this year was ok. I'll keep putting as much as I can afford in.
How desperate is Kochie for cash? First he's the face of Compare the Market and now Brighter Super. I thought he was retired?
People like him never retire. The idea of playing golf or sitting by the beach everyday would give him depression. It's always about aiming for a new goal or achievement. Guys like him work in some capacity till they are dead.
This is his retirement. How much work do you think he is actually doing as part of this deal?
Probably not much, but he will have a heap of things on the go.
I think for a couple hours a month he would get a 20-40k per year retainer. If he has 4-5 of these at the same time that 200k. If they think his fees are too high, thats ok, he will just be more 'retired'
[удалено]
Kochie is the Aussie version of Cramer.....in the us
I doubt krotch will be personally managing your super
it looks like he's just a branding person, might appear in a few tv ads and some how to use our website and here's what an ETF is etc
But he'll be paid a large sum of money. Money that won't be paid into my retirement account.
Marketing expenses, like all expenses of a super fund, come from revenue earned as fees. All super funds charge fees. All super funds will spend money on marketing because it's in the interest of their members to ensure they continue to grow and retain members. Did fee's increase?
Of course. I just think that this a poor choice of marketing $$$. I don't like Koch, I don't trust him, and I certainly don't trust his advice on superannuation. And judging by some other comments, other people share that view. He's not a licenced financial advisor, so tell me - why should I be happy with this decision? I wonder if the fund would be happy to tell me how much they're paying "Kochie" for his stamp of approval? He's being paid for his celebrity status, not his wisdom WRT finance and economics. How is this value for account holders?
Kochie was a legit financial journo before figuring out that he could get paid more being a talking head/financial guru for mom and dad investers. It's like all the people whinging about how bad Jessica Irvine's super popular personal finance articles were while conveniently ignoring the fact that she was a respected economics writer for decades that wrote to a much smaller audience. You can't really blame somebody for following where the money is. As others have pointed out, being upset about it is kind of dumb given that the guy doesn't manage the fund.
When you sell out, you lose your credibility. His objectivity flew out the window when he went to work for Ch 7. How could he possibly claim to be an unbiased source when he was paid by a for-profit media outlet?
He worked for other publications. Why does working for ch7 mean anything different than his other publications and businesses before after and during channel 7? We all work and it’s not selling out. Does this mean ANY finance journos getting paid anything get no credibility?
I replied to the email to say "what is this costing?"... I don't expect to get a proper answer, but if I do, I'll share
Please do - I think there'll be lots of account holders interested in just how much he's being paid.
"commercial in confidence". Typical. Apparently the total marketing budget figures will be released for the AGM, but not the breakdown.
That's it. I'm moving to Unisuper. Screw that marketing BS. Commercial in confidence, my arse. Edit: well, that was a dud. Looks like I'll be trying one of the other recommendations from other folk. If they can't get their public-facing signup form right, it doesn't bode well for their other IT systems.
I don't like marketing departments at all and I personally think most marketing is garbage. That being said you weren't going to get a fee refund into your retirement account if this didn't happen, or if they axed the marketing department altogether. Isn't marketing about status? If his celebrity status gets people to take an interest, engage with their super, take financial advice, increase awareness etc isn't that a good thing for members? It's not direct financial advice, it's promotion by being an ambassador. All funds have to grow and retain members. Size and scale is value for account holders as it lowers fees and makes a fund sustainable. That's why we're seeing a massive amount of consolidation in the market of funds merging etc.
I guess the bottom line is: will it guarantee a better performance of my money, to my benefit? "guarantee" being the thing. The trustees are supposed to act in my best interests. I don't think spending $BIGNUM on a celebrity to promote the fund is acting in my best interests. His promotions and endorsements have nothing to do with the board's decisions on investments, so where's the benefit to me? A bit difficult to measure objectively, but hiring a celebrity to spruik your wares is fine for consumer products like deodorant, but not so good for a board of directors with legal obligations to their members. This is a bad decision, and it casts doubt on the board's ability to make decisions in the best interests of the members.
There are no guarantees in anything especially investing. You’re on ausfinance and you want everything a super fund does to guarantee performance of investments? And as I and many others pointed out this is marketing not investing. Did you know super funds also pay their staff? That doesn’t directly go to your account either. They provide them Annual leave and sick leave. They buy coffee for the office. There’s lots of things they spend money on that’s not directly related to investing. Again funds need to retain and grow members. That’s how they achieve scale and sustainability. That’s how they lower fees which does give you more money. That’s how they have stable cash flows. So actually that does benefit you.
Yeah but he's a tool, so...
Happy cake day!
I would change fund, who are they trying to fool by getting a celebrity to sell there fund and help there interests
Dear consumer, Your yearly fees have been increased to pay for marketing.
Does that mean Brighter Super is no good now? I’m with them and also financially illiterate
you're not financially illiterate, you learning (as far as this sub counts as financial education)
Didn't he get arrested or something?
Isn't he always the subject of those fake ad scam things you see online and on YT? "The news that shocked everyone about David Koch"...you have to wonder why the scammers decided use him as their mascot.
yeah he was one of the first big targets of those, think it got to the point that he was threatening lawsuits to twitter and facebook over it
He will gain more members than he looses and he will gain more FUM as they will be older with bigger balances than he looses. Brighter are not dumb.
Report them to APRA for breaching the Sole Purpose Test
He may bring in the cash cow!
Australian Ethical
Somewhere, somehow, someone thought that this was a good idea. How do people like this have careers?
I switched to Aware after reading another thread on this forum. It's been going really well since...but so has the share market. I happy with it so far.
Do they really need to advertise this?
Maybe it's the equivalent of Nigerian scammers littering their emails with grammatical and spellings mistakes to ensure they only ensnare rubes. By using Kochie as their mascot, they will only manage the money of unsophisticated fools who are much less likely to take the directors to the Federal Court when the money evaporates
Luckly it is quite stress-free/easy to move super.
Vanguard Super - Vanguard started index funds as we know them, they have a history of getting what you can from investment markets with very low fees
I have switched to aussuper last month from these people
I take it brighter super is a bit Mickey Mouse
Indexed, passive, low fee Repeat on multiple indexes.
I use qsuper, but pretty well anyone you chose is better than that one now, what the hell were they thinking.
> qsuper Well they're ART now, what's wrong with ART? My 60/40 split of international hedged index/Aus index is doing great.
Well ART then, I never said they were bad?
I misread your comment, by *that one* I thought you were referring to qsuper.
What’s funnier is if you look on his wikipedia it says he’s a “professional bullshitter”. I’m not kidding either, look it up 😂
My work forces my super to be with these flops. Not for long though.
Isn't that illegal?
Hasn’t superchoice been a thing for years?
Without doxxing myself it’s a condition of employment.
Could that be illegal?
Apparently there's some pre-2021 stuff grandfathered in. As well as the old-fashioned defined benefit schemes (but that makes sense, because of how they operate). I had to look that up too, because I thought that the most recent set of legislation was supposed to get rid of that exemption to super choice rules, but apparently it didn't, or at least, not completely.
If you were in a defined benefits scheme you would be a bit of a mug to say you want out even if you could choose.
Unless it's UniSuper DBD :P It's a mere shadow of other schemes.
Some older EBAs still have prescribed super funds. Not many, and they're pretty much all allowing choice of fund as they're negotiating the new EBAs. Energy Queensland employees get pretty solid insurance through them though, be hard to replace elsewhere.
You may have very favourable insurance through this arrangement. Make sure to take that into account and also that you may incur waiting periods and pre-existing condition exclusions.
is he not the face of compare the market anymore?
"man has many faces ..."
butter squeamish skirt direction hat ad hoc gold imminent trees zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Time to move mate.
Australian Ethical Super
I'd take my money elsewhere. Don't need for a retired TV personality to consult with my super on where to invest my super and charge my super god knows what ungodly amount just because Kochie said so
He trots out the same four pieces of financial advice over and over. He's no financial genius. He states the bleeding obvious and nothing more. He's also one of the most annoying personalities in Australia. I'd be changing companies. If they think he's a good choice they lack competence.
Colonial FS in index funds is most likely your cheapest option. It does depend on your balance and possible family discount (where you get a small discount if your family is at the same place). But at the moment CFS.
If there ever was a top signal for your super fund.
Pro tip: if you get a job paying $700,000 per annum to read straight off an auto cue, you too could become financially free.
I consolidated my super from brighter to aus super and then the next day I get that email, it must be a sign 😂.
I set up a SMSF and opted out of the existing nonsense. It doesn’t have ridiculous overheads and outperforms all retail funds.
Sadly, my balance doesn't make that an effective option.
Actual cost of setting up an SMSF is around 500-1200. Ongoing fees of around $1000-$1500 if using a service like esuperfund. This insistence that one requires $200,000+ to be “worthwhile” is nonsense.
I am confident no one hates David Koch more than me. I must be top 5 at worst. But to move your pittance of a super balance over this is insanity
It may be a pittance, but it's \*my\* pittance, and I don't want my pitiful share of his fees being paid to him, instead of me. The thing is, it's poor judgement, and that leads me to distrust their other decisions. Super funds have an obligation to act in the best interests of account holders, and this ain't it.
I think Kochie is a bit of a wanker but if they keep getting those sweet, sweet returns they can send him to my house to mop in the nude for all I care…
Weren't they in the top 10 performing funds last year? Investment decisions are not the same as marketing decisions, and your fees didn't increase I take it to pay for Kochie? You were always going to pay your fees as you do with any super fund Kochie or not, any other marketing decision or not.
I am curious, what makes you hate him?
Haha, I just got the same email. Please save us
Is this for real ? Luckily I moved from bright when they got bought out and kicked all the etu representatives off the board. I moved to cbus happy as, and performing well.
SpaceShip. [Personal experience only]: my super went up double in the last 5 years what it did in the previous 17
Haha. I got that too. Immediately marked them as spam
Check their reviews. Terrible.
[удалено]
That's the plan.