Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

[MELso]

Just so you realise that politicians want to get their grubby hands on to super:

Jacinta Allan wants to tap super for next wave of government projects

The Victorian premier says the $4.3 trillion superannuation sector is based on workers’ money, and they should get the benefits of more schools and hospitals.

www.afr.com

Well, super's regulated federally, so there's no way the pollies would redirect workers' savings into their own pet projects and boondoggles that will underperform. Oh wait...

 

[cove]

Thanks @Steady the CFMEU is a big concern for all of Australia I think.
Now SIL tried for a pension but is still ineligble based on assets.

 

[Brissy1]

Just so you realise that politicians want to get their grubby hands on to super:

Jacinta Allan wants to tap super for next wave of government projects

The Victorian premier says the $4.3 trillion superannuation sector is based on workers’ money, and they should get the benefits of more schools and hospitals.

www.afr.com

Quoting Allan from that article :
" She said her fiscal strategy would focus on growth and not spending cuts to tackle Victoria’s debt"

Well that's comforting

 

[MELso]

Quoting Allan from that article :
" She said her fiscal strategy would focus on growth and not spending cuts to tackle Victoria’s debt"

Well that's comforting

Spending cuts require being mean to at least some public servants and public sector employees (both core constituencies of the current Victorian government).

The Silver review of the Victorian Public Service should have been released a while ago, and would have spurred discussions about cut backs. But why make awkward decisions about where to cut when you can raid super instead to fund projects (and just as importantly, have people discuss that instead)?

 

[mrsterryn]

With the Jan 1st indexation rates out for some social security payments, any ideas as to the indexation for CSS/PSS January 1st ?

 

[CaptJCool]

With the Jan 1st indexation rates out for some social security payments, any ideas as to the indexation for CSS/PSS January 1st ?

I’m told it’s 2.1%

 

[mrsterryn]

I’m told it’s 2.1%

Thank you so much. I do appreciate your information

 

[MARTINE]

I’m told it’s 2.1%

Thanks CJC.
I have a quick lateral question as a fortunate PSS recipient. Took all as life pension as didn’t need lump sum many years ago.
Do you know of anyone with residual left that goes to the estate once PSS pensioners and partner deceased AND they have had 10+ years of pension. Website gives mixed information about this. Not seeking fin advice in any way just curious.

 

[cove]

Today in the Financial Review there was a suggestion that in 2027 there will be a levy on SMSFs to cover misdeeds and failures in the superfund investment area.
One million SMSFs with their participants should provide quite a big backlash.
Next they will start looking at death duties to cover their incompetence in running surplus budgets.
They now owe a trillion dollars and have no plan.

 

[Pushka]

Today in the Financial Review there was a suggestion that in 2027 there will be a levy on SMSFs to cover misdeeds and failures in the superfund investment area.
One million SMSFs with their participants should provide quite a big backlash.
Next they will start looking at death duties to cover their incompetence in running surplus budgets.
They now owe a trillion dollars and have no plan.

Oh. They have a plan alright. It's our money they plan to plunder.

 

[cove]

Ok @Pushka you really need to stop thinking that it is all your money in 2027.

 

[CaptJCool]

Thanks CJC.
I have a quick lateral question as a fortunate PSS recipient. Took all as life pension as didn’t need lump sum many years ago.
Do you know of anyone with residual left that goes to the estate once PSS pensioners and partner deceased AND they have had 10+ years of pension. Website gives mixed information about this. Not seeking fin advice in any way just curious.

I was told the balance reduces over 11 or so years. I got zero expectation of any residual

 

[MARTINE]

I was told the balance reduces over 11 or so years. I got zero expectation of any residual

Me too - just interested

 

[Brissy1]

Today in the Financial Review there was a suggestion that in 2027 there will be a levy on SMSFs to cover misdeeds and failures in the superfund investment area.
One million SMSFs with their participants should provide quite a big backlash.
Next they will start looking at death duties to cover their incompetence in running surplus budgets.
They now owe a trillion dollars and have no plan.

The industry funds will like that, anything to discourage smsf.
Seems unfair to impose a charge on every smsf, regardless of whether they use financial advisors etc.

If users of a product need protection it should be incorporated into the cost of using that product.

 

[tgh]

every smsf, regardless of whether they use financial advisors etc.

Every smsf should have advisors engaged to satisfy good management parameters.
It is possible to blow a lot of dough on this exercise , for us it is simply a stockbroker advisor on a very low fee.
The new fee will be just another little irritation helping to prop up the crumbling edifice masquerading as guvmnt

 

[Mr_Tee]

Today in the Financial Review there was a suggestion that in 2027 there will be a levy on SMSFs to cover misdeeds and failures in the superfund investment area.
One million SMSFs with their participants should provide quite a big backlash.
Next they will start looking at death duties to cover their incompetence in running surplus budgets.
They now owe a trillion dollars and have no plan.

There is a good article in the AFR today written by Andrew Hobbs. His closing paragraphs are very important to consider in this discussion:

"..........​

It also completely misunderstands the difference between the trustee of an industry or retail fund and the trustee of an SMSF.​

While SMSFs can certainly take a complaint to AFCA, the complaint has to be about a service provided to the fund by an AFCA member.​

​

AFCA is specifically banned from hearing complaints from members of an SMSF about the decisions and conduct of their trustees. That makes them completely different from the trustees that are rightly policed by AFCA.​

It also means SMSFs cannot get any compensation from the CSLR for decisions made by their trustees.​

​

So why should they pay into it?"​

I think if this proposal starts to get legs the SMSF sector needs to show its voice. Once the government starts dipping their sticky hands into SMSF's and other industry/retail funds to bail out the crime and con artists there will be no end to the money grabbing.

 

[deebens]

It's interesting how this has come about.

Govt puts out comparison tool encouraging people to check performance and fees. The media squeals about "checking your super". The avg person really doesn't understand what fund they're in beyond the name or risk adjusted returns, but thinks they should do something or could do better because it's being encouraged.

Scoundrels are one step ahead, and start putting up websites offering super reviews. Avg person who knows no better gives them their details. Scoundrel calls telling them "yep you can do better" and gets them to switch, either hits them for a rollover fee in the thousands for "advice" and puts them in a more aggressive portfolio on another platform if they're lucky. If they're unlucky, they ended up in Shield or First Guardian etc

Arguably the govt caused this mess. In some ways it was helpful because it forced some fund mergers, but it also put the idea in some heads they could do better than AustralianSuper, and that was reinforced after getting a call back from an Irish backpacker.

 

[Quickstatus]

If Govt compels people to put x % of their savings into super, govt and by extension the taxpayer will be on the hook for some of the risk

 

[Brissy1]

every smsf, regardless of whether they use financial advisors etc.

Every smsf should have advisors engaged to satisfy good management parameters.
It is possible to blow a lot of dough on this exercise , for us it is simply a stockbroker advisor on a very low fee.
The new fee will be just another little irritation helping to prop up the crumbling edifice masquerading as guvmnt

OK my poor choice of words, I mean the "Financial Planners", the ones that have to pay enormous annual fees and asic levies to cover claims resulting from the few dodgy financial planners who recommend investing in dodgy funds that pay them the highest commissions. I don't use a Financial Planner to tell me to invest in Shield or First Guardian, but if I did then incorporated into their fee is the asic and CSLR levies providing a small comeback.

Financial Planners are, quite rightly, screaming blue murder about the levy increase. But there's an obvious reason for the increase.