Alan Kohler: Super should be nationalised

Discussion in 'Superannuation, SMSF & Personal Insurance' started by Simon Hampel, 20th Mar, 2017.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
Tags:
  1. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,412
    Location:
    Sydney
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d/news-story/5a014169249de1d5563342ac1bddd43b

    Basically, Alan is suggesting that choice in super funds is meaningless since we cannot know who will be the best performers over the long period anyway - and over 270 super funds to choose from is no better than having say, the "big 4" funds plus a few smaller regionals (like we do with banking products).

    So you'd get a single national fund where the govt selects a number of asset managers to manage a portion of the portfolio and it would pay a pension until death.

    Of course, the first thought that pops to mind would be that the LNP would probably want to sell it off to the banks (Mark Abt on Twitter) ... or raid the fund to help balance the national budget.

    One counter argument I have thought of (in favour of nationalising super) would be to look at the performance of the Future Fund over the past 10 years and consider whether expanding the scope of that to include private sector superannuation (as opposed to the public sector liabilities it was originally set up to meet) would be worth considering.
     
    Simon Hampel, 20th Mar, 2017
    #1
    2 people like this.
  2. Hodor

    Hodor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,238
    Location:
    Homeless
    Does the article say you get a pension based on your contributions or just a pension until death? What happens to the balance of your funds?

    One thing I have seen is people take a lump sum and then deliberately spend it extravagantly until they can get the pension. Sure it is your money, however it has a purpose and there needs to be something that ensure it is used to support a person for as long as possible.
     
    Hodor, 20th Mar, 2017
    #2
    2 people like this.
  3. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,412
    Location:
    Sydney
    The exact wording of the article is:

    "That’s why there should be one national fund, providing whole of life savings. That is, not simply coughing up a cash lump sum at retirement, to be taken off to a financial adviser and skimmed and invested until it’s all gone.

    Mandatory super savings should be collected into a single national fund that saves to retirement and then pays a pension until death. It should be a continuum."

    It doesn't go into any more details - it's just a thought bubble rather than a fully fleshed out proposal.
     
    Simon Hampel, 20th Mar, 2017
    #3
    2 people like this.
  4. twisted strategies

    twisted strategies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1st Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,461
    Location:
    QLD
    considering Peter Costello , is voicing concerns of the Future Fund sustainability ( and Peter doesn't seem to be a light-weight )

    who would make investment decisions ???

    sorry i see a similar problem as the Bank of Japan investing in ETFs as a form of quantitative easing .

    the share-holders not getting a clear voice in th companies invested in .

    in NZ maybe ( where several companies are majority owned by the government , AIZ , MCY for two ) ,

    no i can see human nature bringing this undone ,( in Australia )
     
    twisted strategies, 21st Mar, 2017
    #4