I couldn't help but add my 2c worth:Agree, running a trust isn't...

I couldn't help but add my 2c worth:

Agree, running a trust isn't that hard. Unless you deliberately go out to either do something dumb or to break the law, you're pretty right with some sound advice.

In Nov 07 you had $160k. What did you have in Nov '05. I assume you saw your balance shoot for the stars but didn't complain about the fees. Only when you kept your money in that fund on the assumption the good times would roll on, did you feel ripped off. Sorry to be so blunt - it's not a personal attack, I'm just a realist and am asking a generic question about investment management.

Don't blame the fund manager. Being with the largest retail FM means zip. The reason it tracked 'the index' was because it was probably a 'vanilla' fund with a mandate to invest without much variation from a benchmark / index. This is being 'true to label' and providing exposure to a benchmark, rather than absolute returns. That is why they charge fees irrespective of return, they provide a service of exposure to a benchmark and managing the administration of your fund. I'm hammering this because an smsf is a waste of time if you are just going to replicate the index and not manage the portfolio any differently. Whew, that feels better.

MK - I understand your job as I work with some guys doing the same thing. I've had a few fee lessons of late myself and whilst not over the top at all, I'm earning every $ providing strategy and adding heaps more value to clients. Recently saw a fee for (as best as I can tell) a new smsf to be established and around $300k rolled over. Cost was well over $18k!! Plus, I think they charged around 5k for some investments to be placed. Now THAT is something to aspire to!!! Not!

Cheers