The nature of a market generally ensures there's a wide range of opinions from managers, but in September there were some consistent themes amongst managers' performance commentaries.

Overall average performance for the month was strong on the back of the strong rally in equity markets, particularly in the US, a weak US currency, and strong commodity markets.

In Australia the strong performance of many second tier resource stocks was a welcome reward for managers focusing on that sector, particularly as the US dollar weakened and gold rose. However a couple of interesting comments emerged, such as Optimal's George Colman, who noted that of the ASX200's rise of just over 4% for the month, three quarters of it could be attributed to the market's sharp rally in the first four days of the month.

Looking forward the most recurrent comment, and in many cases concern, pointed to the highly anticipated QE2, or quantitative easing in the US. While most commented that given the US' lacklustre economy something needs to be done, the concern lies in what happens next in the event that a further easing doesn't kick-start the economy, and the inflationary pressures that printing more money is going to have. Kapstream's comment in particular was both insightful and creative, likening the anticipated QE2 to the Cunard liner of the same name which having once ruled the waves in many roles, now sits in Dubai waiting....

Most managers still seem to consider the markets to be finely balanced, and there aren't too many rampant bulls, with many keeping their powder dry until more convinced that the rally can push on through resistance without being derailed by some macro issues from offshore..

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.