Without it turning into an 'IF bashing exercise', they do have an important place in providing basic and low-cost super to millions of Australians, as well as low-cost (and limited) insurance options where none might otherwise exist.
But like Liz75 said, they are bleeding to SMSF's because it is a 'one size fits all' model. Which is why the 'compare' TV ads are rubbish. It's making a simple comparison between 2 basic super funds (1 is heavily subsidised by members and the other more of a user-pays' one) and projecting these differences out over 30 years on the assumption that Joe Public will keep the more 'expensive' one forever and not change to a cheaper one, or go into different / better investment options etc (including SMSF) as the amount grows. Nor is the cost of any advice to IF considered.
Anyway, just trying to include a view from all sides here.
