There are funds which are represented in advertising as AUSTRALIAN
property investments.

There are funds which are represented in advertising as CASH
investments.

According to two large Superannuation fund providers, Investments in
both types of fund have been depleted by "the collapse of the US prime
mortgage market".

In the case of the the AUSTRALIAN Property investment fund, there has
been no representation or disclosure by the fund that contributions
could be effected by NON-Australian property values?

What has the US prime mortgage market got to do with the return on
investments in a CASH super fund?

Under Section 12ED of the ASIC act, there is an implied warranty that
among other obligations:
(a) the services will be rendered with due care and skill; and
(b) any materials supplied in connection with those services will be
reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are supplied.

How do fund managers equate the above legal requirement with the
practice of promoting and accepting investments in AUSTRALIAN
property and in CASH funds in June 2008 and then reducing its value on
the basis of what happened in the US in Nov/Dec 2007 to their property
market?

Has investment in superannuation become less of a means of SAVING for
retirement and more of a GAMBLE by uncontrolled proxy?

Why is it compulsory by law to gamble investments into super funds?
Why can't individuals be allowed to bank their super in secure fixed
term deposit accounts?

Why does the Superannuation claims tribunal not have the power to
enforce the ASIC Act?

Is it true that ASIC will not investigate an individuals complaint that they
have been damaged by an corporations institutional breach of the ACT?
If so, who protects Mr and Mrs's wage earners compulsory payments to
the fund managers?

Are the fund managers breaking the la

I think we will hear a great deal of story's like this but if we are content to take up to 18% positive returns we should understand why we take a loss across the board this year.
You would not believe how many already are complaining but very few did so in the last ten very good years.

OH dear
self regulation is a bbitch

We let the funds industry /medical industry and every other buisness group self regulate

But for people we make drug laws , fines ,levies , and other revenue rais9ing facilitated by govt policing [why because coorperate multiNationals can aford good legal advice [while we get legal AID to plead guilty in the maritime [coorperate law court system]

We dont have constitutional law here [but the law of the merchant [hrh is a maritime juristiction, not a sovereign juristiction ,thus our constitutions and services are under admirality law [not constitutional law.

The constitution is meant to regulate our public servants but instead is used controle the people [who via acts get controlled while buisness rules itself [as well as the demon autocratic system via the two part system] for its big buisness mates ,not the people

Thus they appoint moneyed elites to police themselves
and pay the rule chekkers pennies to turn a blind eye ,

with the expectation of a future board seat as well as a public paid pension ,for services rendered [ie doing nothing to rock the public service bannana boat]

while the lobby convinces govt to instal upon its people ,compulsory super to under pin the stock market ,the fox is watching the hen house [but money/govt/law/medicine has become complicated buisness]

You have no idea that securities are pieces of paper [paper that is then used to make money ,that medicine makes us sick ,and law is percicution,i mean they actually create it [by whim of the privatly owned federal reserve [12 bankers][and a sold out media].

Who give money to their mates [they bought up the media [closed down news papers and then comntrole us and our elected govt to serve big buisness [not the people]

But accept your dumbed down media feeding you murder mystries and sports while the media dumbs us down further [sepperation of powers? when lawyers judge the law [and as polititions] make the law?
come on people wake up

As Alan Kohler said this week - the superannuation fund providers can't break the law because there are no controls on the activities of the superanuation fund providers. When the government legislated for all australian wage earners to compulsorily contribute to superannuation it placed no restrictions on the fees charged by the superannuation providers. Its the wild wild west out there where the individual carries the risk of downturns in the economy and bad investment decisions.