?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
16 January 2013 @ 10:12 pm
On the buses  
A number of buses around the city have big advertising signs, suggesting to ex-government employees that they'd be doing a good thing for themselves by leaving their superannuation balances in the state government super scheme, Q Super. I daresay they'd be doing an even better thing for the super fund; if you crunch the numbers you can see why Q Super is so worried that the redundancies will hurt their bottom line.

Firstly here's the investment stream they'll lose - if you work on approximately 15,000 public servants axed, and assume an average income of $60,000 ongoing, that's $900,000,000.00 worth of income paid to these people over a year; the super guarantee minimum of 9% represents eightyone million dollars in lost investments in a year if each and every one of those employees sets up a new super fund with their new jobs. That's not including the hit that the fund would take if each of those ex-employees also rolled their existing Q Super balances into their new funds.

Management fees for this fund vary, depending on the investment options chosen by the members, but the lowest is .29% for cash and shares, all the way up to .94% for the Socially Responsible investment. The mid point is .615% which represents lost revenue of $498150 on the lost $81,000,000.

Now taking it a step further, and assuming that at least half of those 15000 redundant people take their existing balances elsewhere, and let's assume an average fund balance of $60,000 - that's $450,000,000.00 being rolled out of Q Super and into other funds - just on the initial rollover the govt would lose a whopping $2,812,500 in revenue stream.
More than justifies their ad campaign, I think.
 
 
Current Mood: contemplativecontemplative
 
 
 
(Deleted comment)
miwahni: Firefly Can't take the skymiwahni on January 16th, 2013 08:52 pm (UTC)
If I were a Q Super fund member whose investment allocation allowed investment in infrastructure, I'd be thinking seriously about switching my asset allocation, especially if it was less than ten years to my retirement.
(Deleted comment)
miwahni: Random Doesn't play well with othersmiwahni on January 17th, 2013 10:22 am (UTC)
I don't know that the general public was all that thrilled about the job cuts - the Premier has lost a lot of support over them. I guess though that by the time the next election rolls around the job cuts will have been forgotten by all but the people involved.
(Deleted comment)
miwahni: Aussie Aussie Aussiemiwahni on January 17th, 2013 08:51 pm (UTC)
That's the dilemma, isn't it. There are some specialised fields where we simply don't have enough trained people, and if the industry is to grow then those occupations and skills have to be put on the Immigrant list. Without the immigrants then the industry (whatever it is - and bearing in mind that the skills list is being constantly updated) would slow down. At present it's the mining boom which has caught us unawares insofar as there aren't enough trained people coming through, and those that do have the skills usually attract top dollar. But to maintain and grow the industry we have to source talent from overseas. Whenever I hear of an Aussie with equivalent skills missing out, my first thought is "hang in there, you'll get something in no time if you keep trying" and my second thought is "why is this person an undesirable employee? What's his work history?" There's often background to the story that the teller (usually the disgruntled Aussie) usually omits.
(Deleted comment)