You're on the money, I had spoken to the two you mentioned with no satisfaction, but not NAB or WPac as I changed plan. I was surprised that they didn't factor super pension $ as income, and mentioned it coz it seems a 'normal' assumption, esp given the overall value of the fund being 'ample' indeed. On another matter, I still don't understand how the banks can be held responsible for a lack of risk analysis on the borrowers part 'carte blanche'. Sure, banks need watching, but due diligence is also a thing...seems akin to the philosophy of "privatise the profits and socialise the losses" that end up being paid for by the little guy (you and me who pay taxes). My point is, taxpayers (the little guys) are copping it at both ends -having our wings clipped by not counting super income in pensions toward getting loans, and being burdened by the largesse of the big end of town (and stupid Govt spending/policies) -e.g. who paid for the GFC? The everyday taxpayer. Repeat and rinse...enough said. Thanks for your response Rookstar
