Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 265

The SMSF gaps in the Productivity Commission’s Superannuation Report

The Productivity Commission’s 571-page ‘Report into Superannuation’ provides some well-researched findings on institutional funds, but it fails to hit the mark on SMSF performance. This is not a reflection on the quality of the Commission’s work, but it is a stark reminder of the inherent differences between how the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Tax Office (ATO) report fund performance. We need to highlight and fill in some critical 'SMSF gaps' identified in the Commission’s draft Report.

The disparities in performance reporting result from:

  • The ATO includes contributions tax and insurance costs in net earnings while APRA does not.
  • Given these extra costs, the ATO performance measure will always be worse than APRA’s.
  • The smaller the SMSF balance, the higher the impact of those extra costs.

We have analysed publicly-available contribution tax and insurance data from the ATO to restate SMSF performance so it can be directly compared to institutional fund returns.

For the 10-year period the Commission’s Report covers, SMSFs outperformed APRA funds on a like-for-like basis.

  • In a technical supplement to the Report, the Commission noted that if APRA fund performance is calculated using the ATO method, then SMSFs outperform institutional funds (SMSFs 5.59% compared to 4.98%)
  • The Class submission shows that when SMSF performance is restated using the APRA approach, the amount by which SMSFs outperform institutional funds is even higher (SMSFs 6.71% compared to 5.58%).

The discrepancy around 10-year performance reporting

The Report highlights how institutional funds of different sizes performed over the 10 years from 2006 to 2015. In parallel, the Report should also show how SMSFs starting with different balances (e.g. $1,000 - $50,000 and $51,000 - $100,000) performed over the same period. Instead, they provide a mash-up of one-year performances across the 10 years.

The Commission noted in the Report:

“It is unclear to what extent the presence of small SMSFs in the system is necessarily a problem. It may be that many of these SMSFs will move into higher balance categories over time (or as the upfront capital costs are paid off), although this is difficult to discern given the lack of publicly-available panel data.”

This is highly concerning, given that super is all about saving over the long term, and the industry should be able to compare data on a like-for-like basis.

Class analysis of SMSF performance across five years shows that although funds with smaller balances do generate lower returns, the variance is considerably less than the exaggerated results provided in the draft Report.

The analysis in the right-hand chart used APRA’s rate of return (ROR) method (as against the ATO’s return on assets (ROA) method) and looked at SMSF performance over the five years from 2013 to 2017. Funds were grouped by their starting balance in 2013.

Long-term fund analysis published by the ATO in the infographic SMSFs first lodged in 2012 FY: where are they five years on? did not include performance data. The ATO should provide a 10-year version of this document and it should include performance for all SMSFs, grouped by their start of year balance in 2006.

A call for collaboration between APRA and the ATO

It appears that the advice the Commission received from the regulators was that it is ‘too hard’ to compare the performance of APRA funds against SMSFs. This is disappointing, given the dual regulators are responsible for an industry worth over $2.5 trillion. The competing approaches deliver significant performance reporting differences.

It’s time that the two industry regulators collaborated to deliver accurate insights into like-for-like fund performance.

A full copy of the Class submission can be downloaded here.


Kevin Bungard is CEO of Class Limited, a provider of SMSF administration software.


Robert Hutchings
August 05, 2018

I found this article very enlightening. The CLASS submission is an excellent explanation on the evaluation on S/F performance. I have been tracking the return of our own SMSF against industry find performance (as reported by the Annual Rating reports published in the media) and have long wondered how those funds make allowance for mergers, excess of withdrawals over contributions etc. I am a little suspicious of claims made as there appear to be discrepancies which could be due how these other factors are considered. For example: The recent performance table indicate a top fund having 1,5 and 10 year performances of 12.5, 11.0 and 7.4% respectively (which hopefully are CAGR figures), whilst the same fund was reported the previous year as having performances (over 1,5 and 10 years) of 13.2, 11.8 and 5.8 % respectively . ! cannot reconcile the difference in the 10 year CAGR's with the changes which have simply occured in the latest year included, or the year dropped off.

August 02, 2018

@ Fundie, give it another year or so and watch the 10 year returns "magically" look wonderful. I wonder what could have happened around 10 years ago that will soon drop off this calculations.

Alfred Ellis
August 02, 2018

The very high costs charged by Industry and Commercial Funds which lead to SMSFs being established. NOW, the ever increasing costs incurred by SMSFs since the Federal Governments collaborated with their Labor cohorts and introduced changes in 2016. Labor again responding to their UNION MASTERS constant attacks, dictated by their 'self interest' which is to lessen the attractiveness of their main competitors, the SMSFs. This means members of all funds are being sucked dry by all and sundry. The Super System is of not much advantage to those that will end up with an Aged Pension and for those saving to pay themselves a pension they will find themselves 'no better off' than those who have not scrimped and saved, but enjoy their lives with many holidays and not worry about tomorrow! It is just not worth the bother! Pedro the Swift. .

August 02, 2018

No wonder everyone complains about data quality. Those return numbers look very low – 4% and 5% returns for 10 years ?!?!? With returns like that - why bother? (institutional super or SMSFs alike) – they are medians of course – but they are woeful.

SMSF Trustee
August 03, 2018

Fundie, over the last 10 years the share market delivered only about 7-8% per annum, so 4-5% for the average of funds that include conservatively invested funds is about right. Certainly far from being 'woeful'!

Mate, it's what the market has delivered. Some 'fundies' seem to believe they can conjure returns that aren't really there and prove their genius, but I don't believe them. 95% or so of the returns I'm looking for in my funds are from the market, not from the genius factor (aka 'alpha').

And as someone else said in a comment on your rant, once the GFC years drop out, the 10 year numbers will improve. Balanced fund trailing average returns will rise to around 8-9% pa.

August 01, 2018

Great article. A number of organisations, etc at the industry/retail fund level have used the PC report to push for a $1m minimum SMSF balance. The various SMSF bodies should use the facts per this article to promote SMSFs as outperforming larger funds. A media campaign would be great. Also communicating this to Kelly O'Dwyer, and Labor's equivalent.


Leave a Comment:



Minister Jane Hume on SMSFs and superannuation reform

What SMSF trustees need to know about benefit payments now

What is the new work test exemption?


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.