The article is a joke, but your comment about impossible to compare is in my view, 100% correct. You've got different structures : SMSF, Retail, Wholesale, Industry funds, Corporate plans etc etc. Some are very transperent some are very 'bundled'. Industry Funds I find are very good at hiding costs - it takes more than a couple of dollars a week (per account) to run them, so the money has to come from somewhere (= reported and actual returns may differ). As I've pointed out - just look at their annual reports. Older retail type funds - the information is available but most people don't bother. They are progressively reducing over time and can be expensive, especially for larger amounts. Some wholesale platforms can give you a clear idea of costs and performance, sometimes quite well but no good for smaller amounts usually a and from what experienced people tell me, plenty of Joe Public's out there DON't want to see fees, even if overall they are lower (but not everyone of course).
The above is mainly looking at admin costs etc, then you have investment options and costs - there's a multitude of different options, funds, shares, TD's, cash, property etc. The thing that is difficult to comprehend is how many ads and 'research reports' base their findings on 'average balanced funds' when there is no common basis for comparison. It's a joke and the socialist government we have just lap it up.
I'm for more disclosure from execs and a standard form of comparison but ultimately, I reckon a large part of the population will say "so what" or just use it as a means to make a wrong or misdirected decision, Anyway, that's my dribble for today.
