Re super, totally agree with your comments thirra. It all works wonderfully when the economy's booming, but everyone takes a massive hit when there's a slowdown. Look at the incredible power of sovereign wealth funds overseas to get an idea of what we're missing by not having super centralised & managed for the good of the population rather than making a profit.

Btw Cretaceous, I'd hope you'd transferred your super investment to "Cash" rather than "Growth", "Balanced" or whatever else they call it. I did that with mine last September & as a result my super's increased over the past year. The MSM keep repeating the mantra that everyone needs to take the hit because it'll all come back sometime in the future, and that if you put your money in cash you'll miss out when the market rebounds. Its propaganda serving not your interests but those of the super industry.

The superannuation system as a nation-wide saving and retirement-income strategy is in a major predicament, certainly. And for the thousands of boomers between 50 and 60, it becomes a major dilemma. If they retire and crystallise their current balance, they lock in and take the heavy 2007-2008 losses permanently. If they do not crystallise, and wait for the market to re-establish the happy times, then the risks of capital loss (let alone any serious return on the investment) are probably unacceptably high for someone for whom this income will be their only post-work finance.

My partner has worked full-time all of 2007-2008 - she has lost more in superannuation capital than she earned during that period. A real savings incentive, eh? A national (government-administered) central fund also has its problems, since it still has to be invested somewhere, and make a profit to justify the establishment of such a creature. But cash is king for sure ... even property in the right market(s) remains good too, with the national shortage of housing and lots of renters out there.