Which super - Australian, international, balanced?

Intrinsic Value · 10 March 2011

Julia said:
Not necessarily at all.
Do you believe you could achieve a better return than you're currently getting from your managed fund? This is what you should be focusing on.

I believe ESuperfund has very low fees:

That's less than you are currently paying for a managed fund and you would be able to take charge of your own outcomes rather than paying some anonymous fund manager his take even if he loses money on your behalf.

I haven't personally used Esuperfund but have known many people who are very happy with them.

At that price, and presuming you have reasonable confidence in your own capacity to make money, I don't see why you wouldn't have your own fund, even with a low amount of capital at the start.

The oft quoted 'advice' that one must have more than $200,000 to feasibly start up a SMSF is, I suspect, peddled by the financial advisers attached to the public super funds. They simply do not want to see their customer base reduced by people opting instead for SMSF's.
So, a bit like politicians, they waffle on and on in the marketplace about the need for a given amount to 'make it worthwhile' whereas imo I don't believe such a claim is valid if you actually consider the options.

Think for yourself and choose the logical option.

Yes that 200k figure is a joke really. If you are prepared to take control of your own investments as little as 50k is enough to set up a SMSF as you will recoup any fees by better returns very quickly and you have the added satisfaction that you are not feeding a bunch of parasites who are reaping obscene amounts in fees and charges out of the managed funds.

My case is pertinent....when i looked at how much i had actually contributed to Australian Super and then l looked at my balance I had 30k less than my actual contributions. I was in the balanced default fund.

Basically I had contributed 230k and only had a balance of 200k.

Contrast that with 200k that I invested over a shorter time period in the stock market using value investing techniques where my balance stands around 500k and you can quite clearly see the benefits of creating and managing you own SMSF.

Greg · 10 March 2011

Basically I had contributed 230k and only had a balance of 200k.

Contrast that with 200k that I invested over a shorter time period in the stock market using value investing techniques where my balance stands around 500k and you can quite clearly see the benefits of creating and managing you own SMSF.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I've taken a fork in the road here by responding to your post and not Julia's but your experience just rang so true to me. I had a super balance of around $240k a couple of years ago and when I consolidated it a few weeks ago, my balance was just over $200k - not impressed, but nor am I equipped or knowledgeable enough to manage my own super, so I will ride the wave and manage with the results.

My second point is probably the most pressing; I'm very impressed with your achievements in the "Value investing" techniques and wondered (as a complete newbie) if you could point me towards some reading matter, research materials or a post on this forum that will allow me to better understand how you got such great results? Is that a really dumb question? I hope not.
Thanks
Greg

burglar · 10 March 2011

Intrinsic Value said:
... as little as 50k is enough to set up a SMSF as you will recoup any fees by better returns very quickly ...

Baby steps!
I have some trepidation as it seems complex.
I just have to remember the advice I give to others.
Baby steps!

First step, asked here.
I thank you all, for your responses!

Second step,
I read some threads.
Not all in one go ... I stopped for lunch, half way through!!:

Third step,
I have emailed my FP.
He is losing his revenue stream from the managed fund, should I go ahead.
His response may not be favourable.

So_Cynical · 10 March 2011

burglar said:
Can I start an SMSF with as little as $69K?

Why did I believe, (from what I've encountered), that 200K is a reasonable minimum?
What would I risk/forgo if I found a way to start with less?

Im in a similar boat to you Burglar and after uming and ahing about it over the last 14 months ive finally settled on Australian super, because with them i at least get to directly invest half my super money into ASX200 stocks, at a good price while still paying non trading fees of less than $140 a year.

I reckon this is the best compromise for people who reckon they can beat the fund managers but have less than 100K in super...i plan on starting a thread to follow my " beat the fund manager" super adventure when its all good to go.

burglar · 11 March 2011

So_Cynical said:
... i plan on starting a thread to follow my " beat the fund manager" super adventure when its all good to go.

I look forward to that, and I hope you smash him.

Knobby22 · 11 March 2011

burglar said:
I look forward to that, and I hope you smash him.

Yes, let us know how you go!

Which super - Australian, international, balanced?

Intrinsic Value

Greg

burglar

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

burglar

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Similar threads

Which super - Australian, international, balanced?

Intrinsic Value

Greg

burglar

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

burglar

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency