Trio fraud victims demand compensation

  Agree completely John,

The fact that the government expects us to see what their 'specially trained and PAID "professionals"' cannot, especially after a review into said fund which grants them far more access than any investor or even advisor could have obtained, is laughable.

I would like to know what ASIC and APRA have changed in their own processes which would capture these types of schemes more efficiently, as opposed to a haphazard net of reforms to an industry which, if in place 10 years ago, would not have helped anyone stop this event from unfolding any differently than it already has.

They need to look at themselves, accept responsibilty and compensate investors who were let down by beurocracy, bad management and indifferent regulators.

  

I know that its a tough fact John, but "Self Managed" does mean just that, both in terms of risk and reward. The SMSF's pay a LOT lower management costs than typical Retail Funds, and this is because the Prudential Regulation structure that cost Retail Funds so much is simply up to the Fund Trustee, which means in this case - You. It is not for Government to pick up those pieces even though there is so much pain for the affected Investors. Good Luck John

  APRA regulated super funds had to pay a substantial levy to bail out those who lost in Trio. They are also having to pay massive levies to pay for Stronger Super.
If SMSFs want the benefits of stringent regulation, they are also going to have to pay the costs.

I have not seen the SMSFs arguing that they should all pay a Trio levy like the APRA regulated funds had to, rather they are trying to make the taxpayer pay for their stuff ups.

If they want compensation for this sort of thing then switch to an APRA regulated fund or stop whingeing.

  Totally agree with Geoff and TH. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for losses by SMSF?

Reality is that most people set up SMSF's to give them autonomy from the superfunds. In many cases they believe they can do a better job of investing their money - or they do it to reduce costs.

Don't disagree with the motives but if you do get it wrong don't ask for me to pay for your mistakes.

  Of course it's tough and our hearts bleed for those affected, but 'cost-saving' and 'self-managed' do mean exactly that. Of course there's a downside; isn't that what (so-called) risk tolerance, and qualified advice - including (again so-called) 'incidental advice' (aka 'my accountant's advice') is supposed to be about? Did no-one advise these people of this real and definite risk of DIY? (Rhetorical question.)

The Big Question (that we should all be asking) is - did/does the Government Regulator do the job it is (highly) paid for doing? (Another rhetorical question.)