SMSFs Experiencing Elevated Costs: What Investors Need To Know

As per the findings of Productivity Commission, self-managed superannuation funds or SMSFs have been witnessing increased costs and lower returns. The latest report stated that the expense ratios of these funds are related to the size of the funds and not with the fund age. The report contained information that the SMSFs which are smaller in size tend to charge elevated costs and they deliver lower returns on an average. Of the total established SMSFs, 42% have below $5,00,000 in the assets are experiencing increased costs as well as lower returns on an average.

In May 2018, SMSFs which are handling below $1 million of assets are not performing up to the mark and are underperforming the institutional funds. The primary for the underperformance was estimated that the increased costs which are being deployed are completely eroding the investment returns which these funds manage to generate. Notably, the ASIC or Australian Securities and Investments Commission in the year 2015 has stated that the investors who would be investing in the self-managed super funds need to have starting assets amounting to a minimum of $2,00,000. The May 2018 report also stated that, of the total self-managed super funds, only 16% having the balances above $1 million. However, the majority of the funds are having the balances in the range of $2,00,000- $5,00,000. It stated that SMSFs which are having lower balances will eventually and slowly shift towards higher balance zone or after the upfront capital costs have been dealt with. The investors might consider other benefits of making deployments in SMSFs like these investments are able to give greater control.Â

Thus, the question that whether or not developing SMSFs are actually beneficial for the investors or not. In May 2018, the draft report of Productivity Commission also stated that the fund which is managing the assets of over $1 million are competing with institutional funds. The report for the month of October 2018 stated that the smaller funds are experiencing higher costs and are substantially higher than the funds which are regulated by APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority). The elevated costs are the primary reason the funds are generating lower net returns on average.

However, this conclusion also witnessed some sort of criticism. The industry players were seen criticizing the results on the grounds that the results which were mentioned were made biased as they have also included the non-recurring establishment as well as wind-up costs. However, the Planning Commission still stated that the size matters. The recent report also stated that if SMSFs are incurring increased initial costs, but they are able to garner assets of more than $5,00,000, then there is a possibility for the expense ratios to get reduced which could help in boosting the net returns.

However, it was mentioned in the report that even though a large number of smaller funds are generating lower net returns, there are certain exceptions. The report stated that not all the SMSFs which are managing assets lower than $5,00,000 are delivering lower net returns on the investments.

Disclaimer

The advice given by Kalkine Pty Ltd and provided on this website is general information only and it does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or needs. You should therefore consider whether the advice is appropriate to your investment objectives, financial situation and needs before acting upon it. You should seek advice from a financial adviser, stockbroker or other professional (including taxation and legal advice) as necessary before acting on any advice. Not all investments are appropriate for all people. Kalkinemedia.com and associated websites are published by Kalkine Pty Ltd ABN 34 154 808 312 (Australian Financial Services License Number 425376). website), employees and/or associates of Kalkine Pty Ltd do not hold positions in any of the stocks covered on the website. These stocks can change any time and readers of the reports should not consider these stocks as advice or recommendations.