<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Money magazine Comments - Australia's worst-performing super funds revealed</title>
	<description>The worst-performing and most expensive super funds in Australia have been named in the latest APRA heatmap results.</description>
	<link>https://www.moneymag.com.au/feed/latest?story=179799354</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 10:32:59 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 10:32:59 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Money magazine</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Paul Jackson ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>The real data that should be posted is of those with exorbitant platform costs, and another list of those with underlying investment options that are expensive and/or underperformed. I find it hard to understand that a pension fund with underperforming investment options would not also have their accumulation platform with the same underlying funds not underperforming. More clearer data is needed, otherwise it is simply trying to alarm everyone unnecessarily.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Paul Jackson ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2023 10:32:59 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>