I've been thinking about Super a bit lately, and although it's supposed to be for our 'benefit' when we retire, I really can't see how this is achieved.
Firstly, I have a friend who works in Super, and I don't think there is anything in place that encourages him to do what is best in the interests of those who own the money (putting aside the fact that he spends all day emailing his friends).
Also, another friend told me that they receive commission on gains made, so aren't they motivated to invest in more risky ventures for bigger returns? Yet if they lose money, it doesn't seem to affect their performance assessment - the cost is only to those who own the money.
It's a bit like giving someone your money to play with at the casino, no? You give someone $100,000 to play roulette, and if they lose, they just say to you "oh well, better luck next time", but if they win, they say "because of my hard work and diligence, I have to take x% from those winnings".
If they lose it all, it could mean a very difficult retirement for some.
Wouldn't the concept of Super be better off if the money was just forced to go into an interest bearing bank account with the same withdrawal limitations that exist now?