Driven by a desire to help others, Elaine worked in sectors like aged care and social services, taking on jobs the government is still desperate to fill.

But after nearly five decades in the workforce, she retired with just $45,000 in superannuation.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kerr 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think financial literacy just isn’t great across the board. It wasn’t until my late 20’s I started to take an interest in super and found I had literally nothing in it. It had been whittled away by insurance payments, and management fees. (Happy to say at least they don’t do automatic insurance any more).

Maybe the default settings for super should be redirected to the index funds - low management fee options and a blend of bonds or something. Not an expert but this is not an uncommon story!

[–] kerr 2 points 10 months ago

Just checked my statements. I hit $10k when I was 32. Yikes.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's a few different things going on here but sadly, one of them is poor financial decisions on Elaine's part.

I'm not blaming her for that, lord knows I've made more than my share of poor decisions financial and otherwise, but while there are valid criticisms to be made of our superannuation system, Elaine's situation isn't really a useful prism through which to enumerate them.

One of the biggest problems is as always, privatisation. Some super funds are for profit, some are not for profit, and some are self managed. My point here is, because of the eyewatering amount of money in superannuation, and because it's not managed by the government exclusively, it has attracted an entire industry of bottom feeders leaching off the pool of money. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem in and of itself, but that industry spends a lot of time advocating for even more complex rules to ensure that it's not navigable by the lay-person.

[–] trk 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is there a law that money managed by a superfund can not take more in fees than its generating in returns? I feel that should be a thing.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom 2 points 10 months ago

That's not really possible.

In a year in which there's a share market "adjustment" returns will be negative. Super fund staff still need to get paid.

Rightly or wrongly, it's up to members to ensure that their fund's fees are reasonable.

[–] Atin 2 points 10 months ago

I'm 46 and have about the same due to health problems.