Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

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 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

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 1 day ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 4 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 4 days ago

While the profession continues to see consolidation at the top, Adviser Ratings has compared the business models of Insignia and Entireti and how they are shaping the pro...

2 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND