• expired

20,000 Qantas Points for Joining Australian Super

1303

Received this email from Qantas - unsure if it’s targetted.

Thanks to an exciting new partnership between Qantas and AustralianSuper, new members can now earn points with their Super Fund.

Simply join AustralianSuper, contribute a minimum of $350 within 6 months and you’ll earn 20,000 bonus Qantas Points*. Offer ends 5 May 2019.

Redeem them for flights, upgrades, hotels, wine and more, and be rewarded today while you plan for tomorrow

Related Stores

australiansuper.com
australiansuper.com
Qantas Points
Qantas Points
Marketplace

closed Comments

          • +4 votes

            @clubhonda: I'm in Hostplus and have already lost about 5% (med to high risk) to the end of last year. I am hoping that's for all super plans.

            • +11 votes

              @David76: People should be aware that the Hostplus default Balanced fund is really not 'Balanced' - it is really 90%+ in growth assets despite their claims otherwise (property and infrastructure are definitely not defensive assets compared to cash and fixed interest). So despite their good performance, they will be more volatile and are at more risk of a major fall than other 'Balanced' funds. If you want to compare apples with apples, you should compare the growth or high growth options elsewhere. Unfortunately even that has its flaws though as each super fund defines growth and defensive assets differently so you really need to look carefully at the underlying investment mix to appropriately compare. Unfortunately, SuperRatings as is mentioned in a below comment, and other comparisons still don't accurately compare super fund investment performance on a like-for-like basis.

              I mention this because Hostplus has been touted as the top 'Balanced' Fund and also has become popular due to a recommendation in the Barefoot Investor to invest in their ultra-low fee Balanced-Index option (Hostplus' other Balanced fund option) - relying on index funds going forward has its own issues too.

              •  

                @Ven0m: A balanced fund would do well to have a lot of infrastructure assets in them as they are good returns for the reduced risk. Property, well it depends on the cycle and type of asset, but now it isn't going to bring you gangbuster returns.

                A fund with a large chunk of the assets in cash and fixed interest is not balanced, it is severely defensive.

                • +1 vote

                  @serpserpserp: I'm not doubting the historic good performance of infrastructure or property assets, but they are both subject to the risk of major capital loss. Infrastructure would be less so yes, but the risk is there and nowhere near as defensive as cash or fixed interest.

                  The issue is how to classify 'Balanced'. If you looked at Vanguard for example, they have their Balanced index fund as 50/50.

                  So for consumers to make proper comparisons I believe there needs to be some kind of industry standard.

                  • +2 votes

                    @Ven0m: " I'm not doubting the historic good performance of infrastructure or property assets, but they are both subject to the risk of major capital loss."

                    Exactly

                    And Aus Super's contingency put in place last October:

                    "Australia's largest superannuation fund is changing its rules to prevent investors running for the exit in the case of a major property market crash.

                    AustralianSuper will now be able to freeze its property fund for up to two years, preventing members from withdrawing their investments, switching to other options or making contributions.

                    The industry super fund said the freeze would only be applied in "exceptional circumstances in response to a market stress event", citing Brexit as an example."

                    And after the two years, maybe another two years. Good luck rolling out or if it is a deceased estate.

                    Also possibly shows how much faith they have in their internal property valuations for unlisted property assets.

              •  

                @Ven0m: I've seen that Barefoot Investor recommendation for HostPlus criticised in a number of places. In terms of what you pay for performance, it's definitely not the best option you can go for in terms of long-term superannuation growth, although it is super easy to set and forget and you should get decent results from it.

              • +2 votes

                @Ven0m: https://www.superratings.com.au/superratings-top-10/

                in case anyone wants to see where AustralianSuper is ranked by Superratings

            • +1 vote

              @David76: You hope others have lost too….

            •  

              @David76: This years been terrible for stocks so yes it’s everyone. Cash stocks were best this year, says something.

            •  

              @David76: Yes I'd expect most super balances dipped in that period

        • +7 votes

          You'll see review just as bad for Hostplus just depends where you go looking. Most people will only bother to create an account to complain so bigger companies will also get more complaints
          https://www.productreview.com.au/p/hostplus.html

          If you want to compare performance Australian Super are 5 star too: https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/5-star-super-funds...

          • +20 votes

            @daydream: Australian Super was the highest performing open industry fund behind the closed Hostplus and CBUS funds.

            List of funds, ordered highest performing to lowest

            https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services...

            Every one of the 50 worst-performing balanced superannuation investments over seven years has been operated by retail funds such as ANZ, Westpac and IOOF, with just one product offered by the for-profit sector making it on to the list of the top 135 performers.

            In revelations that categorically bring to an end the fierce three-decade dispute between retail and industry funds over which is superior, secretive and highly detailed industry data obtained by The Weekend Australian shows that regardless of the investment timeframe or level of risk involved, retail funds are unquestionably consistently at the bottom and industry funds are consistently at the top.

            Despite every worker being forced to divert a portion of every pay packet into compulsory super since it was introduced in 1992 — and the key choice most people face being whether to invest in an industry fund or a retail fund — no list of worst-performing super investments has ever been made public, with analyst companies refusing to release them.

            Retail and industry funds account for more than $1.28 trillion of the nation’s retirement savings and the revelations back renewed calls from federal minister Kelly O’Dwyer this week for the creation of a Future Fund-style national retirement fund to keep the nation’s super savings out of the hands of the “many rent seekers and ticket clippers” in the sector.

            The highly detailed data from SuperRatings, considered the most comprehensive and accurate in the nation and used by the Productivity Commission in preparing last week’s report into the $2.8tn sector, lists 278 “balanced” super options offered by the nation’s retail and industry funds.

            Over the seven years to March 2018, of all funds in “accumulation” phase, where the member is still working, the 50 worst-performing were all operated by retail funds and all but one of the 17 worst performers were managed by Westpac’s BT or ANZ’s OnePath.

            OnePath Managed Growth was the worst-performing balanced option over the seven-year period, delivering an annual average return of 5.17 per cent.

            Of the top 135 performers, just one was a retail fund, the Vanguard Growth Index Fund, which came in at 28th place.

            Seven years is considered the best timeframe for comparisons because it is the longest period for which reliable data is available, however the results are similar over one, three and five years, and whether “growth”, “cash” or other types of options are examined.

            The data looks at balanced options, determined as those with between 60 and 76 per cent of investments in “growth” assets such as shares, and the remainder in defensive assets, such as cash.

            Because there is no industry standard, some options in the list may call themselves “growth”, however they are all balanced based on SuperRatings’ criteria.

            There are many more industry funds in the list because retail funds were far less likely to disclose their performance.

            According to experts, retail funds were likely to report only their best performers, so the actual performance of that sector is likely to be worse than indicated.

            The Productivity Commission declined to name any funds in its reports on super, despite saying the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority should improve its “inconsistent” super data to help investors compare.

            Retail funds have for many years argued APRA data showing their poor performance can’t be used to judge them because it looks at only the overall performance of “funds”, which usually operate numerous different investment options.

            This SuperRatings data specifically examines those individual options, negating that argument.

          •  

            @daydream: Indeed. People dont have an analytical brain to analyse data.

      • +15 votes

        Personal experience. One of my parents passed away mid last year. The remaining parent has attempted to roll the deceased's super from Australian Super into her own super account (different fund). We were promised by Aust Super that it would take 4 weeks. Four months later and we're still waiting. They've given nothing but conflicting advice, have not delivered on promises, difficult to reach by phone, don't return emails. They've claimed we haven't completed forms that we've completed twice and sent through multiple times. They've misinterpreted their own forms, and terms and conditions. They've sent us multiple letters, each one conflicting with the last. They could not care less about all the stress they've caused us and the attitude we've gotten from some of their staff is unbelievably poor.

        They're happy to take your money but good luck getting it back.

        I would not touch this company with a barge pole. Or someone else's barge pole. Or any barge poles.

        Do whatever you can to screw them out of frequent flyer points but don't give them any money.

        • +7 votes

          Better send it to the ombudsman.

          • +1 vote

            @serpserpserp: You're right. It just takes time to put the complaint together properly. Having worked in complaints previously, it's not worth doing it half-assed. But thanks for the suggestion, we will pursue it shortly.

            If any body else is reading this and they're in a similar boat with their financial provider, these are the people you need: https://www.afca.org.au/

            • +2 votes

              @krosmo: Krosmo - You're better off putting in a general complaint with AFCA and then gathering more information once it's in. Since they take a while to review cases.

              •  

                @StonedWizard: Ok, thank you. You sound experienced in this - is it necessary to complain to Aust Super first? We've done this verbally with them and it should be blindingly obvious to them that we're unhappy, but we've not gone the formal complaint route with them yet because we have no faith that it'll achieve anything.

                I couldn't find this answer on AFCA website, perhaps I missed it. Thanks.

                • +1 vote

                  @krosmo: Try communicating with AustSuper via e-mail as much as possible, and if you have to call, advise that you'd like to record the call, then do so and keep the records. In case they ask why you need to record it, don't hesitate to mention AFCA.

        • +1 vote

          Wouldn’t Ausuper be subject to probate delaying reassigning the funds to the correct recipient ? I could be wrong. We’re not talking about a bank account. A solicitor could help you here if you’re still waiting.

          •  

            @MITM: That would be correct in circumstances where probate is required. I learnt last year that sometimes it isn't 🙂

  • +9 votes

    Anyone know if I can just sign up, self contribute $350, receive 20K Qantas points then "transfer" the $350 back to my default super fund??

    • +2 votes

      That’s what I was thinking off doing. But didn’t look into it any further.

      Was planing to do that later on. It does sound a bit too good to be true.

      • +1 vote

        hastag:2lazy2readT&C

        • +4 votes

          Can’t read up on it at work. Gotta wait till later.

          I saw what could be a good deal (for some) and posted it.

          Post first, read later.

      • +1 vote

        The thing about self contributing the $350 is that I won't see that $350 for another 40+years

        • +1 vote

          Unless you nominate it to the First home super saver scheme within ATO website and withdraw it.

          • +1 vote

            @FirstWizard: Just in case someone reads and doesn’t look into it: FHSSS withdrawals aren’t easy. You can only do it once, withdraw money you’ve contributed on top of the compulsory contributions, etc.

            You get 12 months to look for a home once the funds are released. You can ask for another 12 months but no guarantee. If you fail to purchase, you either need to put the money back into super (and can’t do it a second time) or keep the money and pay a big tax bill (the same amount of tax as they discounted).

    • +2 votes

      You won't get the full $350 back because of transaction costs

    •  

      I don’t think qantas allows point clawback. Once the points are posted they’re yours.

      If you’re worried, you could always ensure you make a redemption prior to cancellation ?

    •  

      Can't see why not but you'll be paying about $60 in fees (admin + withdraw) assuming they credit the points within 3 months.

    •  

      I don’t see why not. I doubt it’s legal a super fund prohibits you from transferring your money how you see fit.

    •  

      Only concern is the 350 is oblitersted ny fees and becomes nothing pretty quick, otherwise I’ll do the same

      Have to sign up with no insurance too

  •  

    How much is the fee? It is more than 350?

  • +7 votes

    Isn’t Australian super a pretty decent super provider?

  • Top