Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 618

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

Self-managed super funds (SMSFs) in Australia have some peculiar attributes, the most glaring being the almost complete rejection of international assets in their asset allocations and a seemingly unhealthy obsession with relatively low yielding cash deposits. Just 3% of SMSF assets are allocated to offshore investments and a massive 16% of assets are allocated to cash. In comparison, larger super funds allocate 38% of their assets to offshore investments and hold 9% in cash (refer Chart 1).

Given the strong performance of global equities in recent years, it is reasonable to assume that returns in SMSF would have underperformed the larger – and presumably more professionally run – superannuation runs.

The data, however, tells a different story:

  • As at the end of the Dec-2024 quarter (the most recent data available) SMSF net assets totalled $981bn, having risen an impressive 38% over the prior four years.
  • Compared to APRA’s superannuation statistics for Large Super1, total net assets stood at $2,986bn as at the end of the December quarter, having also increased 38% (in this case over the prior five years).

Despite their conservative cash holdings and extreme domestic focus, SMSF’s have grown just as fast as their larger and more sophisticated cousins and now represent 25% of total superannuation assets. How is this possible?

There are four conventional ways this could happen: (i) attracting a greater share of younger members; (ii) rollovers from Large Super; (iii) higher net contribution flows; or (iv) superior asset allocation decisions. However, in evaluating the evidence it becomes increasingly clear that the primary reason for superior SMSF investment returns comes down to tax.

1. Are more young people joining SMSFs? No.

There is no evidence to suggest that a significant shift has occurred towards younger members in SMSFs. Of the 1.174 million SMSF members, just 3.3% are below the age of 35. This compares with 26% of the members in Large Super being below the age of 352, and this share has been stable since 2019.

Given the share of the population between the ages of 15-34 has remained steady at 27% over the past five years, which is virtually identical to the share of Large Super for this age group, it is safe to conclude that the growth in SMSFs is not due to younger people choosing to join SMSFs in greater numbers.

2. Have existing members of Large Super been shifting into SMSFs in large and increasing numbers? Yes, but it’s not a big contributor.

The number of member accounts under the Large Super umbrella declined by 2.6% over the past five years, whereas the number of SMSF accounts expanded by 9.0%. While the shift is clear in terms of the number of member accounts, the dollar value shift is somewhat less impressive.

Net rollovers from Large Super into SMSFs totalled $7bn in 2024, up 35% in the past year and 114% over two years. Despite this rapid growth in rollovers, as a share of SMSF’s total assets rollovers in 2024 represented just a 0.7% share of the total. Over the past four years rollovers into SMSFs as a share of total SMSF assets represented just 2.2%. That is, of the 38% increase in SMSF net asset growth over the past four years, only 2% can be attributed to a shift from Large Super to SMSFs.

In short, rollovers from Large Super have played more of an ancillary role to SMSF’s growth. It is clearly not the main story.

3. Is there an income and age skew to SMSFs that generate above system net inflows? No. SMSFs are actually in large net outflow.

Chart 2 shows that SMSF members are older (52% are over 60, compared to 34% for Large Super) and Chart 3 shows that they also have higher incomes, with a significant proportion earning over $100,000 annually.

This combination suggests a higher potential for contribution inflows into SMSFs. However, this has not been the case.

Inflows to SMSFs in 2024 were 2.7% of assets, compared to 6.6% for Large Super. Average inflows per member are higher for SMSFs ($22,000 vs. $8,400 for Large Super), but outflows are substantial, with $43.8 billion in benefit payments in 2023–24 against $24.5 billion in inflows, resulting in a net outflow of $19.3 billion (2.2% of assets).

Large Super, by contrast, maintained a net inflow of 2% of assets. Even with rollovers, SMSFs face a net outflow of 1.5% annually, indicating that contribution flows do not drive their asset growth.

In short, SMSF contribution inflows are larger on average than Large Super, but SMSF outflows greatly exceed contribution inflows and, even after accounting for rollovers from Large Super, there is a significant net outflow each year from SMSFs.

4. Surely, it can’t be asset allocation, can it? No, not really.

Bringing this together in a single chart requires us to shift timeframes given the data on SMSF net contribution flows is only provided annually. In Chart 4 we show the growth in net assets for both Large Super and SMSFs over the three years to mid-2023.

Over this time-period the growth in SMSFs net assets was 30%, exceeding growth in Large Super by 3.5%. While this is notable, the chart clearly shows that once accounting for the impact of rollovers and contributions, SMSFs achieved a 34% investment return compared to 20% for Large Super – a 14% difference in just three years!

This is remarkable data point. How is it possible that individual or Mum and Dad investors achieved vastly better investment returns than professional Large Super investment teams?

Using the differing asset allocation weights of SMSFs and Large Super and the returns of each asset class (in AUD) we can test how much of this excess investment return by SMSFs is due to asset class selection.

When we apply asset class weights and asset class returns we can ratify the accuracy of the reported 20% return over the three years to 2023 by Large Super. However, when we do the same exercise for SMSF we find the asset allocation choices for SMSF generated a return of 23%, slightly better than Large Super, but well short of the 34% investment returns reported by the Australian Tax Office.

So, what is going on?

Asset allocation provided a modest benefit to SMSFs over this three-year period, despite the lack of exposure to booming international equities.3 However there remains a very large (11% over three years) residual between the investment returns due to the combination of asset allocation decisions and asset class returns and the returns that the SMSFs reported to the ATO that still need to be explained.

By a process of elimination there really is only one other factor left that can explain this large residual – tax.

Do SMSFs harvest far greater tax benefits than Large Super? YES

There are two possibilities that can explain why SMSFs generate greater post tax returns. The first possibility is that they have a far greater proportion of members in the retirement or pension phase where no tax is paid and thus boosting total SMSF returns. The second is that they are using more tax advantageous strategies during the accumulation phase.

The generosity of a zero-tax pension phase is an arrangement that is a uniquely Australian construct and given higher income households have higher superannuation balances it is also clearly regressive.

Given we know that 52% of SMSF members are over 60 years of age, compared to 34% for Large Super members, then approximately half of the 11% excess return residual over the past three years can be attributed to a higher proportion of SMSF members being in the pension phase (i.e. the difference in the proportion in the pension phase (52%-34%) x investment return (34%) x Tax rate (1-15%) = 5.2%).

This implies that SMSF members must also be availing themselves of other tax effective strategies during the accumulation phase that have generated approximately 2% p.a. additional return compared to Large Super over the past three years. At first glance this seems like a high figure, but it is plausible when considering some of tactics employed within SMSFs.

For example, a larger weighting to domestic listed equities (27% in SMSFs compared to 22% in Large Super) suggests that SMSF members are likely to be benefiting disproportionately from targeting franked dividends. We estimate that this explains over half the 2% p.a. additional return, a very meaningful contribution particularly when compounded over time. It is important to understand how beneficial dividend franking can be for superannuation planning, particularly for SMSFs where the beneficiary is approaching retirement. In the Appendix we show the impact on returns over time of having a tax rate well below the corporate tax rate, when combined with a growing dividend stream.

Other options are also available to SMSFs that are likely being targeted. Currently, 6% of SMSF assets are in residential property. The ability to use leverage to purchase residential property inside a SMSF affords negative gearing strategies that cannot be accessed via Large Super. Moreover, the use of tax effective special investment vehicles – which the Federal Government has championed to direct investment towards high technology startups and smaller businesses – provide another avenue for SMSFs to minimise tax during the accumulation phase which is not possible for Large Super to access in scale.

Chart 5 breaks down SMSF returns further to highlight the significance of these tax advantages relative to the investment returns attributable to asset allocation.

What have we learned?

There are five key lessons from the comparison of SMSFs and Large Super:

  1. SMSF net assets have grown as fast or faster than Large Super over recent years and now represent 25% of total superannuation assets.
  2. Although SMSF asset growth has been a modest beneficiary of rollovers from Large Super into SMSFs, the drag of assets being in a state of outflow has been a much larger headwind for SMSF asset growth.
  3. Investment returns from SMSFs over recent years have been vastly better than those achieved by Large Super. However, investment returns attributed to asset allocation choices are broadly comparable to Large Super.
  4. SMSFs have a much higher share of members in the tax-free retirement phase, which we estimate has provided a 1.7% p.a. boost (or 5% over three years) to SMSF growth.
  5. SMSFs have a much high share of members approaching retirement and likely to be skewed to highly beneficial franked dividend income streams, negatively geared property and tax friendly investment vehicles. By deduction, we estimate that this benefit to SMSF returns from these investments is also currently approximately 1.7% p.a.

So are SMSF members better investors? No, the asset allocation investment returns are similar to Large Super, but they are older and more tax-wise. SMSF members are enjoying relatively more of the benefit of the tax-free pension phase of retirement and are better able to skew their investment strategy towards tax friendly retirement strategies, which has greatly enhanced both their investment returns and aggregate SMSF asset balances.

The question is will the federal Treasurer now reset his sights on the tax benefits afforded to the superannuation sector in general and the SMSF sector in particular? We think the answer is yes, but with one quarter of superannuation assets now in SMSFs and 1.2 million members it will not be a popular decision.

SMSFs are clearly better for higher income Australians with access to a good tax accountant. But whether this results in a more dynamic and equitable economy is a separate open question altogether.

 

1 Denoted in this piece to mean funds with in excess of $50 million in assets.
2 Note that the data by member age stopped being compiled by APRA in 2022.
3 Over this timeframe SMSFs benefited by having a low exposure to the worst period of bond market performance since Federation and benefited from having large relative exposure to residential property, private credit and loans which posted strong returns. This might be interpreted as luck or skill depending on one’s perspective, yet the salient point is that despite very different asset exposures the returns generated.

 

Tim Toohey is Head of Macro and Strategy at Yarra Capital Management, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article contains general financial information only. It has been prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial situation or particular needs.

To read the full paper, important disclaimers and appendix, click here.

 

8 Comments
BRUCE
July 03, 2025

Tim, you have totally ignored ‘costs’.
The cost of running an SMSF are far lower for a member with a reasonable size account than for the same size account in a large fund as they charge a % of funds under management so the many many low value members get a subsidy from the high value members. Also their inefficiencies/ advertising and Trustee costs adds up to being a major cost all their members .

Rob W
July 03, 2025

I think this article is a beat up, a solution looking for a problem perhaps?
Everyone knows that franking credits add some % to ANY investor's returns - not just SMSF. Everyone also knows that APRA superfunds also receive franking credits but, as you suggest, they probably invest slightly (not significantly) less in domestic equities than SMSF. So what?
APRA funds also have large investments in bonds and unlisted (somewhat opaque) assets, much larger than SMSF. So what?
It's hardly a "tax dodge" to simply decide to invest more $ in assets that receive franking credits than someone else - that is a ridiculous assertion. You're not related to Bill Shorten are you?

Wildcat
July 03, 2025

We had an accountant classify 100% of a fully diversified managed account structure as 100% Australian equities. This not only mucks up the data with the ATO, the auditor claimed we were in breach of the investment strategy. We sent the real AA and the problem went away.

Rob
July 03, 2025

Missing some critical differences:

1. Franking credits - within a SMSF, 100% of Franking credits flow thru to the Fund. Within Industry and Retail funds they don't - there is an ATO sanctioned "haircut" applied to pooled funds. That is a big + in Pension mode.
2. The onshore bias works when the A$ appreciates vs the US$ as it has done and is doing. A decade or so ago, the AS$ and US$ were at parity or better for a while - just imagine if it happened again? All offshore investments would get smashed. {Not as though they they totally avoid offshore exposure - if you own BHP/CSL et al, it comes with a locally listed stock}
3. Retirees have actually figured out that virtually all their future "liabilities" are in fact in A$'s and that offshore investments, amount to a massive "mismatch" in "Assets vs Liabilities". Why add that currency risk? {Future F making same error}
4. SMSF's are dramatically cheaper to run as they can, if they are smart, totally avoid asset or platform based "percentage charges". Acc/Audit charges less than 10 bps?

James Gruber
July 03, 2025

I thought this article was worth including in this week's edition. However, there are some questions around the data on SMSF asset allocation. Specifically, are ETFs with international exposure which are listed on the ASX treated as 'domestic equities' or 'international equities'? I suspect it may be the former though haven't seen any data to confirm or deny this. If anyone has information on this, please comment or email Firstlinks.

An answer to this would be the basis for a fuller assessment of SMSF performance.

Kind regards,

Your editor.

Rob W
July 03, 2025

Anecdotal as it relates to our own fund only, so not data per se, but our fund invests 30% in an ASX listed LIC that invests solely in international equities. When it is listed in the annual SMSF return, it is categorised as domestic equities. In my opinion, this has been a major weakness in the ATO (and subsequent) reporting of SMSF diversification.

RichardL
July 03, 2025

I agree that there is almost certainly a misclassification of ETFs (etc) as domestic, even when they hold international assets. I imagine that there is some research out there that might give at least a hint as to how to adjust for this in estimating SMSFs' exposure.

I don't know how much that would close the gap.

If there's still a big difference, so that the explanation is not asset class selection, must tax be the only reason for outperformance? What about asset selection within asset classes? It would be good to have an indication as to whether SMSF trustees have been good (or bad) stock pickers.

Michael Kennedy
July 03, 2025

James, I suggest that Graham Hand answered the ETF domestic/international question quite clearly in his 17 July 2015 article, 'Let’s debunk this myth about SMSFs and global shares'. Though written in 2015, ETFs etc can still have a varying mix of domestic and international equities and its probably too difficult for the ATO to reflect this in their stats. So yes, I believe SMSF's hold a much greater proportion of international equities than acknowledged, and especially those paying for good advice. I wonder why the author of today's 'Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?' didn't include this possibility in his analysis. Perhaps because it would have tended to undermine his claim that 'The generosity of a zero-tax pension phase is an arrangement that is a uniquely Australian construct and given higher income households have higher superannuation balances it is also clearly regressive'? I would argue that a capped zero-tax pension phase has not been regressive, if it was successful in encouraging massive growth in fully self-funded retirement and increasing reductions in government outlays on old age pensions into the future.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Let’s debunk this myth about SMSFs and global shares

SMSFs drop the ball on risk in asset allocation

How to prevent excessive superannuation balances

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.