Industry super fund warning on SMSF costs

SMSF AIST ATO ASIC smsf sector industry super australia smsf essentials superannuation trustees SMSFs australian securities and investments commission australian taxation office accountants

20 November 2013
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

Industry Super Australia (ISA) has warned the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that the costs of setting up a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) are higher than is generally believed. 

The warning is contained in a submission compiled by the ISA and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) to the ASIC review of the SMSF sector. 

In that submission, the two organisations point to research which they say suggests the costs of SMSF establishment are higher than previously believed and which they say suggests a need for tighter regulation of the sector. 

ISA chief economist Dr Sacha Vidler said setting up an SMSF was probably one of the most important financial decisions a person would make in their lifetime and required careful consideration.  

"People need to make sure setting up an SMSF is the right thing for them after considering things like set-up and exit costs, loss of insurance coverage for theft and fraud, and disclosure of costs and benefits compared to the fund they're already in," he said.

"The advice people receive is critical to helping them make sure, and should be in their interest - and not the interest of the adviser or accountant."  

"There should be obligations on financial planners and accountants that ensure that people are making informed decisions," Vidler said. 

The ISA and AIST submission cites Australian Taxation Office data as the basis for its claim that the cost of SMSF establishment could be higher than previously believed, saying that in 2010 one in five SMSFs had assets of less than $100,000. 

It said the smallest funds, with assets of up to $50,000, had costs on average of over 7 per cent a year, while those with funds of between $50,000 and $100,000 had costs on average of 3.7 per cent - "much higher than a major not-for-profit fund with costs of less than 1 per cent a year". 

"Many SMSFs are established with small accounts, and their cost-to-earnings ratio are unacceptably high, especially when compared to industry and other not-for-profit funds," Vidler said. 

Originally published in SMSF Essentials.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

One foot out the door

Just 15 per cent of advisers said they may exit the industry over the next few years, Thats about 2,300 advisers! if ...

24 minutes 27 seconds ago
Craig Offenhauser

I think Mr. Toohey's conclusions and extrapolations are "currently" merging on the typical SMSF issue of "....prone to ...

2 days 18 hours ago
Random

What happened to the 700,000 million of MLC if $1.2 Billion was migrated to Expand but Expand had only 512 Million in in...

3 days 23 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 2 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND