Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 50

More SMSF myths debunked

Last week, I outlined ‘Four Big Fat Myths of Superannuation’: three relating to the superannuation system overall, and one on SMSFs.

In this article, I consider five other SMSF myths. In dispelling these, I offer a health warning: I rely on the most recent detailed public domain data, the ATO’s “Self-managed super funds: A statistical overview 2011–12(released 16 December 2013). The excellent and somewhat more recent data on SMSFs produced by companies such as Investment Trends and CoreData are normally available in detail only by purchasing their work. There is strong consistency in the results of these various factual sources of information.

SMSF Myth #1: There are too many small and sub-scale SMSFs

There are exaggerated claims regarding a preponderance of SMSFs which are too small. Based on the Investment Trends April 2013 SMSF Investor Report, around 80% of SMSFs had assets in excess of $250,000, and ATO statistics as at June 2012 show similar results. Some funds below $250,000 may be in the early growth stage, and anticipating prospective significant concessional or non-concessional contributions. That said, there is a small portion of SMSFs for which size and viability should be questioned.

SMSF Myth #2: SMSFs are expensive

In the 12 months to 30 June 2012, ATO figures show the operating expense ratios of SMSFs at about 0.56%, falling from 0.69% over the five years to 2012. These expenses generally do not include advice fees or the cost of investments, which are usually relatively low given the high portion of direct investments in SMSFs.

With the subsequent growth in asset values of SMSF investments, and the fixed operating costs of SMSFs which are subject to competitive pressures, these operating expense ratios have likely reduced further since June 2012. Due to the fixed costs of operating a fund, SMSFs with low balances will have higher average expense ratios.

SMSF Myth #3: SMSFs don’t make a meaningful contribution to the nation’s long term capital

Based on the Investment Trends report, around 50% of SMSFs are invested directly in Australian shares, listed investment companies (LICs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). These are all investment vehicles for the provision of long term capital to fund commercial enterprises and the nation’s future prosperity. They are also investments in a suitably liquid form. Investment in illiquid infrastructure investments would often be inappropriate, unless SMSF investors consciously ‘sign up’ for limited liquidity, whilst investments in listed infrastructure assets would be sound.

SMSF Myth #4: SMSFs have loose regulation and compliance

SMSF prudential oversight and compliance are often criticised, leading to claims SMSFs should come in under a single superannuation regulator (and by implication, APRA prudential regulatory provisions). A recent example was a survey conducted at the 2013 ASFA Conference where roughly 75% of participants expressed the view that SMSFs should come under the umbrella of one superannuation regulator, presumably APRA. These survey results are not surprising given the vast majority of ASFA conference attendees are representatives of APRA-regulated funds.

The facts are that the SMSF sector is functioning well, as concluded by the Cooper Review, and the latest ATO statistics indicate the percentage of the SMSF population with auditor contravention reports (ACR) remains relatively stable at approximately 2% of all SMSFs each year. There’s room for improvement, but such a low non-compliance rate doesn’t accord with alarmist comments about the sector. Further, calls for a change in regulatory oversight do not recognise the fundamental difference between APRA-regulated funds, which are collective vehicles for many unassociated superannuation investors (thus requiring prudential supervision) versus SMSFs where the trustee is intimately involved. SMSFs have a very limited number of members, which are typically ‘associated’, with no ‘collective’ coverage and hence no need for the same prudential regulatory provisions.

SMSF Myth #5: APRA-regulated funds offer complete consumer protection while SMSFs don’t, and hence SMSFs should be part of the super fund compensation scheme

Andrea Slattery, CEO of the SMSF Professionals Association of Australia (SPAA) said on 7 February 2014, “The guiding philosophy underpinning self-managed super is that trustees and members take responsibility for their own retirement income outcomes … (they) have to appreciate that decisions rest with them, although they can get advice, either directly or indirectly, from specialist SMSF advisors.”

Andrea further said, “ … any compensation scheme should only be part of a broader financial services scheme where clients have suffered financial losses because of the misconduct or insolvency of a provider of a product or service, and that the compensation should be funded by a levy imposed on that industry sector where the misconduct occurred.”

APRA-regulated funds are entitled to compensation under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS) Act but this is not automatic and is not a guarantee. It is at the Minister’s discretion, and only where it is in the public’s best interest to approve compensation for APRA-regulated funds.

SMSFs are not entitled to compensation under the SIS Act provisions, but are entitled to other legal avenues of redress in the event of fraud, theft, or inappropriate advice. These include but are not limited to personal indemnity schemes, actions under the Corporations law, and the Financial Ombudsman.

Consumer protection can be strengthened by tightening professional indemnity requirements, and strengthening compensation for misconduct or insolvency in managed investment schemes. Trustees of APRA-regulated public offer funds are responsible to a wide collective of their members, who need to be offered protection. SMSF trustees and members need to operate on self-responsibility.

Along with last week’s myth, ‘SMSF investments driving a property bubble’, that makes a total of six SMSF myths. In a competitive industry, any sector with a million members and over $500 billion in assets can expect such myths to be propagated.


Andrew Gale is co-owner and Executive Director at Chase Corporate Advisory and a board director for the SMSF Professionals Association of Australia (SPAA). The views expressed in this article are personal views and are not made on behalf of either Chase Corporate Advisory or SPAA.

Ron Burns
May 11, 2016


My recollection is that APRA was given "power over SMSFs ( having more than four

members)" when the ATO was given responsibility for SMSFs with less than five

members. (1993 ?)

Again if my memory is correct APRA had a role as supervisor of small Funds such as

Personal Approved Deposit Funds with a bank eg Macquarie or insurance

company eg Tower (Austrust) as trustee. The previous govt overseer was the ISC

(Insurance & Superannuation Commission) which some regard as a test bed for the

much larger Self managed super system we have today.

February 25, 2014

Since when did APRA have any power over SMSFs, Cranky Pants? I must have missed the legislative changes.

Rick Cosier
February 22, 2014

There are a number of Andrew's myths that I would take issue with. Firstly, myth 2 last week (retirees spend their money). There is clear evidence that many retirees are cashing out their super to pay off debt or for some other purpose. The evidence Andrew uses to back up his myth is drawn from studies of the SMSF sector. This is the top end of super savings and not representative of the total market.

Secondly, superannuation is massively skewed to the well off, and the concessions are too generous. How is it right that a couple can live in a $2m home, have several million in super and pay absolutely no tax?

Thirdly, there are more than 500,000 self managed super funds. The vast majority have only ever been examined by their accountant. My experience is that most SMSFs are not complying with the law. Few have a documented investment strategy, almost never have any minutes and never have letters between trustees and members which confirm contributions, pension payments, etc. The ATO report and the Cooper Review seem very very superficial to me.

Cranky Pants
February 22, 2014

Hi Rick,

You would be doing the industry a great service if you could supply all the evidence you have to back up your claims, either to this forum or directly to APRA. If SMSFs are really as bad as you say they are, this besmirch on the rest of super needs to be urgently corrected, and I am sure that even APRA would have no trouble winding up or severely penalizing SMSFs AND THEIR AUDITORS without a documented investment strategy or documentation on contributions etc.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Andrew G.
February 23, 2014

Hello Rick

I agree with Cranky Pants' comments - it would be good to support your arguments with hard data rather than 'your experience' or anecdotal information, which only risk perpetuating the myths.

Your comments re non-compliance are simply not supported by the facts, which I outlined in the article.

Andrew G.

February 21, 2014

Andrew Gale does the industry a service by dis-spelling some popular SMSF myths. I agree with him except no 4 (loose regulation & compliance).

SMSFs are an example of individual choice, with choosers accepting whatever consequences follow.

Most myths are confected angst from sectors constrained by their exponential growth. So, whether it be number, size, expense, economic contribution or comparable protection from fraud, those who opt for SMSFs take it as a package.

It is legitimate to query if the choice is well-made, as the impact of wrong choices on a national basis has the potential to destabilise the entire system, a proper focus of ongoing policy. The role of dumping unsuitable people into SMSFs (as Trio showed) shows no sign of slowing.

Even on loose regulation, one could argue 'part of the package', but where this gets undone is when the unexpected growth and dominance of SMSFs collides against behavioural imperatives. If, for any reason, the sector comes unstuck on a massive scale, the taxpayer will be forced to bail them out post facto, and without any compensation for this risk, as in the GFC.

At its most basic, the lack of investment scrutiny of the retirement vehicle is designed to provoke crises. The sector's one third share of the industry means that this is no idle fear, akin to building massive mansions on geological fault lines. 'It may not happen over night, but it will happen' to borrow from a popular ad.

Think of lightly regulating slow bicycles and tricycles relative to cars and trucks: if over time, they become more like powerful machines able to cause havoc to highway traffic, we will regulate them analogously.

SMSFs are no longer a toy. They can weave in and out of the APRA highway at their option. Ageing makes this more probable. They demand commensurate scrutiny and regulation in the interest of our retirement incomes policy. Treating them as an adjunct to revenue collection no longer makes sense.

Senator Sherry had started thinking along these lines, but he left before being able to implement his vision..


Leave a Comment:



What is the new work test exemption?

7 vital steps to compliance for your SMSF

When an SMSF member becomes disqualified


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.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

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.