The debate over how Super Funds report returns - net of fees or gross - is once again generating debate amongst the financial services industry, but isn't the answer pretty obvious?

For some sections of the industry to prefer to report gross returns seems illogical - or at least self serving.  The hedge fund and absolute return sector, long criticised for having high fees, generally reports returns on a net basis and has always been transparent, (with few exceptions) on both the level and structure of fees.  There seems no reason for the superannuation sector not to do the same.

AFM has long held the view that the debate over the size of a fund manager's fees is to some degree academic.  Surely what is vital is the actual return received by the investor once all fees, charges, costs and commissions are taken into account.  Funds should be avoided if the fee structure does not align the manager's interests with those of their investors, and managers should be held to account if fund performance fails to match their stated objectives.

So we would agree with David Whiteley, chief executive of the Industry Super Network, and others in their argument that fees should be transparent and returns reported on a net basis.

Once that's achieved it is hoped that investors (both institutional and retail) will focus more on returns, preferably on a risk adjusted basis, and other key performance criteria, to allow informed debate, choice and decisions.

Regal's funds all benefited from strong markets in September, with mining the highlight, although profits were well spread with no significant losses.

The Amazon fund, a Cayman based, market neutral fund with $151 in FUM and the largest in the group, returned +4.18%, much in line with the ASX200.

The onshore Australian long short fund rose 7.68% for the month, while the onshore Tasman market neutral fund was up 6.02%.