Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

5 November 2026

Home / Caveat Emptor

Why only four members in an SMSF?

Question from Stuart Wilson

I would like to know why SMSF's are limited to less than 5 members. My family has in excess of 4 people in it and when including siblings spouses and children, many, many more than 4.

We currently have 4 separate SMSF's which quadruples the costs and time involved in managing the funds. As a very hands on SMSF trustee, we manage all of the investments and try to complete as much of the accountancy work as we can before handing the accounts to the accountant but the costs are still 4 times what they would be if we could run a single SMSF with more members.

Many articles and companies highlight the minimum investment required in a SMSF to make it viable when considering costs, surely and increase in the number of members allowed would enable more people to benefit from establishing a SMSF.

The restriction on membership seems to be an added cost to those people wanting to establish a SMSF.

Thanks, Stuart Wilson

Reply from Ramani Venkatramani, who is an actuary and between 1996 and 2011, he was a senior executive at ISC /APRA, supervising pension funds.

SMSF's predecessor, 'the excluded fund' was regulated by Insurance and Superannuation Commission with all other complying funds, with the idea that those who wish to control their own retirement savings should be able to do so, with basic requirements being met. It was considered that in order for the control to be properly exercised, the number of members should not exceed 4, as the option of going into the bigger sectors (corporate, industry or retail) was open.

Wallis Committee in 1997 recommended its continuation with the regulation shifting to ATO and a prohibition on trustee remuneration. The limit of 4 was retained.

 

While the number 4 itself is arbitrary, the idea is to keep it small and manageable. The possibilities of lifting the number, or changing the definition (to say, all members of a family regardless of number) were suggested during the Cooper review but were not accepted.

 

As there is no limit on how many SMSFs can be set up by someone, for more than 4, two or more SMSFs can be used under the current limit.

(We have also approached ASIC for a response).

  •   3 December 2013
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
Andrew Bloore
December 04, 2013

This has been an issue which has been discussed over and over and the answer has been the same every time, no change to the numbers. In fact the outcome of this restriction has not been a growth in the number of member it has actually seen the number of members on average decline from 15 years ago when it was approximately 2.2 member on average per fund to where it is today at 1.9. That said families need solutions. There are two different issues here, the first being the tax and structural issues of the fund and who can be a member of it (to a maximum of 4, or more technically correct, fewer than 5) and secondly how to simply manage the assets of the funds efficiently.

Having 2 funds does not necessarily mean you need to duplicate the investment process into two funds. For example you can set up a bare trust to hold all of the assets of many funds and invest them from 1 single pool to make the investment management of the assets simple. Say you have 10 members in the family, you obviously need at least 3 fund structures but you can invest via 1 holding or bare trust and simply account for the position in each tax entity in their correct proportion. This really is a simple administration function. Yes you still need 3 tax returns (one for each fund) but it dramatically reduces the administration time from an accounting point of view and simplifies the Trustees lives. Furthermore the SIS Act specifically allows the trustees to appoint an investment manager - say a patriarch, who can be responsible for managing the group assets.

Everyone seems to focus on the issue of the 4 members rather than saying well if we can only have four members how do I make my life as easy as possible within the legislation. What ends up happening is each fund ends up with different assets and one person trying to work of what goes where. There are simple solutions to all this. As always go to a superannuation professional administrator and ask how to make the fund work for you, not the other way around.

Christopher Dodson
January 11, 2017

Hi Andrew,

I am interested in your comment as I do not believe it is possible for related SMSF's to invest in a bare trust or unit trust which holds anything other than property and cash.

Are you able to provide references on how this can be completed?

Philip La Greca
December 19, 2013

The other rationale for the limit relates to how the decision-making process works in the multi-member funds and the number of members that could be overridden.

The SIS law does not specify so the general principle is a majority of trustees/directors rules. Thus with a two member fund both must agree, for a three member fund then two out of three and for a four member fund three out of four. In these cases then only ever one person's wishes are not met. If we take this to five members however then we end up with three out of five so more members are not satisfied with the outcome.

This would require a statutory basis for decision-making and anything else than a unanimous decision would always result in some low cap of member numbers. Even 75% for a 10-member fund would mean two outvoted members.

If you consider how difficult it is to get 5 people to agree on how to split a lunch bill consider the outcomes when you are talking about peoples retirement savings.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Lending policies can spoil good SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Winding up market linked pensions with care

Does a declaration of trust satisfy SMSF separation of asset regulations?

Firstlinks is sponsored by:
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation’s structural failings

Politicians are fighting over access to super, but they may be arguing about the wrong thing. The system’s three fundamental flaws have been hiding in plain sight for decades, costing Australians far more than they realise.

Planning

The great wealth transfer myth

Why do some families preserve wealth for generations while others struggle to? As the great wealth transfer unfolds, the determining factor is often not the structure of the estate, but the preparation of those who will inherit it.

Investment strategies

What comes after bank hybrids?

For years, bank hybrids have been a cornerstone of portfolio income. With tens of billions of dollars now disappearing from the market, investors face a critical question: what comes next, and are the obvious replacements enough?

Investment insights from the US

What happens when knowledge becomes a commodity? The latest themes emerging from the US tech sector suggest AI could reshape company moats, disrupt incumbents and create winners and losers in unexpected places.

Investing

Can Berkshire thrive without Buffett?

Warren Buffett's departure marks the end of an era. But the more important question for investors is whether Berkshire's culture, discipline and capital allocation framework can survive without the man who built them.

Retirement

The Bengen 4% Rule: Lost in translation

For years, retirees have been told to focus on withdrawal rates. But the real question is far simpler: how many dollars can you safely spend? The answer may be very different from what conventional retirement wisdom suggests.

Interest rates

Super low interest rates came with side effects

For more than a decade, investors lived through an era of near-zero interest rates. With bond yields now surging, it's worth asking whether cheap money solved economic problems, or introduced a much larger set of risks.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

Site Map

About Firstlinks

© 2026 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.