<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - REST Industry Super delivers 0.85%</title>
	<description>REST Industry Super has delivered a positive 2011-12 return of 0.85% for its default Core option and 1.18% for same option in the pension division.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=21382969</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:25:45 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:25:45 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Tim Lindsay (None)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>I&#39;m just curious whether this is the &#39;earning rate&#39; or the &#39;crediting rate&#39;. According to their website the two may differ (and have in previous years) so just wondering what performance members actually receive in their account balances?</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Tim Lindsay (None)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:25:45 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Disappointing REST (REST)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>It looks like these REST financial "clowns" have no clue in what to invest in. If a fund only grows by 0.85%, will these guys salary be trimmed down because of bad performance? I guess not. Either we look for another fund or take a self managed approach.</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Disappointing REST (REST)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:53:53 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>