If you have more than $1.6 million in super, presently you might find that you are unable to make any further after-tax contributions (non-concessional contributions) into your super.

This cap limit is based on a per person limit and was introduced as a result of the government’s idea of restricting how much one person can have in their super at retirement at a reduced tax rate of 0%.

I recently reviewed Media Super’s Annual Report after reading a media article that reported them purchasing a 429-year-old violin as an investment. I thought this was an odd investment for a regulated super fund. Was this a responsible decision given the opaque market of collectables and the high transactional costs associated with such investments? And, how did this get past APRA? It triggered me to investigate Media Super’s investment policy.

I often like to read ‘peculiar’ books that give me some insights into different ways of thinking. I recently came across a book review in The Monocle Minute. It inspired me to buy the book:

It seems like a simple enough question. If you had a balance investment option in your super, would you choose a 7% or 12% return? Yet, before you decide it’s a no-brainer, it’s worth probing a little deeper into what could cause this 5% variance, as the reporting returns are not standardised.

When it comes to retirement most people believe more is best, but is this always the case? Have the Centrelink changes that came into effect last year distorted reality; has the $350k super fund become the new $900k – without all the extra effort of squirrelling away so much for retirement?

I was recently went around the corner from my office to eat at an Italian restaurant. It was one of those restaurants where the entire menu is in Italian. Now my Italian is sketchy at the best of times, but what was a little more tricky was the menu items. Normally when you look at a menu you can quickly identify a couple fail safe options, this place however had me stumped.