Low balance members hit with fees under super changesBY ALICE URIBE | MONDAY, 8 APR 2013 12:25PMExtra administration costs borne out of the federal government's proposed superannuation changes could be passed onto all superannuation fund members, even those with small balances according to Deloitte. |
Editor's Choice
Former Income AM director launches fixed income advisory
A former Income Asset Management executive director has launched Ancora Fixed Income Advisory for high-net-worth clients targeting the defensive asset class.
TAL names super fund partnership lead
TAL has named a new partnership leader who will focus on its collaboration with a super fund, replacing Mel Jose, who left in August to join Netwealth after a two-year stint.
Capital Group expands into Middle East
Capital Group said the Middle East is a strategically important region for the business and its clients.
UniSuper says Firmus float was 'priced to perfection'
UniSuper chief investment officer John Pearce said the $175 billion super fund decided to not take part in the Firmus float, describing the neo-cloud company as "priced to perfection", before the initial public offering (IPO) was abandoned today.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Cliff Man
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF Shares chief executive Cliff Man spent his career automating, building and challenging established systems. Now, he is betting that Australia's ETF market has room for something different. Vinny Vucago writes.







Likewise, the comment that smaller balances will be hit is jumping the gun. The Govt made a reasonable assumption that funds in retirement will earn 5% pa on average. Such funds tend to be more conservatively invested so this is sensible. The SMSF brigade is quick off the mark, trying to keep their tax minimisation plans going and maintaining a tax haven for large balances.
A little more analysis and insight, and a little less histrionics will help the industry move forward.
The basket known as "unintended consequences" is already full as a result of poorly thought through policy and this whole tranche of changes has simply caused us to get a second bucket to catch the overflow.
I would have thought that "unintended consequences" are those not identified at the outset. What do you call it when these consequences have been identified, but you arrogantly still push the changes through?
I call it "policy just to make it hard for the new government when they come into power to repeal".
The first term of the new parliament is going to be full time unravelling all the mistakes of this current one and the list continues to grow and grow and grow.
Why not make it official? Why don't they ask us all to give up our super for the greater good of the entire population?
Bad luck if you've made sacrifices along the way to stay off the dole and tried hard to make something of your life....too bad, we'll have that...thank you very much....I guess I better get back to work to pay my taxes so that I can be told that, even having donated my fair share to government coffers, it's still not enough...!!
Bring on September 14.