Most SMSF debates are about what trustees can invest in. This one is about who should be allowed to start one at all.
The Super Members Council, the industry body for profit-to-member super funds, has been arguing for stronger safeguards around members switching from large funds into SMSFs and platform products. Its public switching analysis says too many Australians are moving into more complex structures with balances too small to make the numbers work.
The concern is legitimate. A very small SMSF can be expensive, and fixed administration costs can damage retirement outcomes when the balance is low. But the policy question is different: should Australia use a blanket minimum balance rule, or should trustees and advisers be required to show that the SMSF makes sense on the actual facts?
This article explains the SMC data, the limits of the headline return figures, the cost crossover between SMSFs and industry funds, and the checks trustees should make before starting or maintaining a fund.
Key Takeaways
- There is currently no legal minimum balance to establish or maintain an SMSF in Australia.
- SMC’s switching analysis says 61% of members who rolled from five large profit-to-member funds to SMSFs in 2024-25 had balances below $100,000.
- The same analysis says SMSFs below $100,000 had average total expenses near 12% of balance and a 10-year annualised return of -9.5%, compared with 7.0% for selected profit-to-member funds.
- Those headline figures need context because ATO SMSF return data is not calculated in the same way as APRA fund returns and can be distorted by wind-up funds, new funds and cash-heavy funds.
- ASIC’s current SMSF advice guidance does not use a single dollar threshold. Starting balance is one factor, not the whole suitability test.
- The Cooper Review rejected a mandated SMSF minimum asset size in 2010.
- The practical trustee question is the fund’s cost ratio: annual administration and compliance costs divided by the fund balance.
Contents
- What the industry super push is about
- What data SMC is using
- Why the small SMSF return figure needs context
- Where SMSF costs cross over with industry fund fees
- How fixed costs compound over time
- What regulators have said about SMSF minimum balances
- Who benefits from a minimum balance rule
- What existing SMSF trustees should watch
- How to check your own SMSF cost ratio
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the industry super push is about
The Super Members Council has called for stronger consumer safeguards where members switch from large regulated super funds into SMSFs and platform products. In its public analysis, one of the proposed next steps is that ASIC should bring back a minimum recommended balance for SMSFs.
The argument is framed as consumer protection. The concern is that younger and lower-balance members are rolling out of profit-to-member funds into structures that may charge more, be harder to supervise, and provide weaker retirement outcomes if the member does not understand the cost and compliance burden.
No minimum balance has been legislated for SMSFs. The ATO registers properly established SMSFs without applying a dollar-balance suitability test. ASIC regulates SMSF advice and misconduct, but it does not currently set a legal minimum fund size.
That distinction matters. A regulator warning, an advice benchmark and a legal prohibition are not the same thing.
What data SMC is using
SMC’s switching analysis uses de-identified rollover data from five large profit-to-member funds with high outward rollovers. It covered full transfers to SMSFs and platform products during 2024-25.
For SMSFs, SMC reported that:
- 61% of members transferring to SMSFs had balances below $100,000;
- 80% had balances below $200,000;
- the average rollout for the sub-$100,000 SMSF cohort was slightly under $30,000;
- almost half of members switching to SMSFs were under 45;
- SMSF switching from the surveyed funds grew 21% from 2023-24 to 2024-25; and
- the 30-45 age group had the highest SMSF switching growth, at 31%.
SMC then compared the cost and return profile of very small SMSFs with selected profit-to-member funds. Its analysis says members in SMSFs below $100,000 face average total expenses near 12% of balance each year, compared with under 0.5% for the selected profit-to-member funds. It also says SMSFs below $100,000 had a 10-year annualised return of -9.5%, compared with 7.0% for the selected profit-to-member funds.
Those numbers are powerful. They also need careful handling.
Why the small SMSF return figure needs context
The -9.5% return figure for SMSFs below $100,000 is based on ATO SMSF statistical data. That data is useful, but it is not a clean like-for-like comparison with APRA-regulated fund returns.
ASIC’s current INFO 274 guidance cautions advisers about using published ATO return-on-assets data as a direct comparison with APRA fund investment performance because the inputs and methodology differ.
There are also practical distortions at very low balances.
Funds being wound up. A fund in the process of closing may hold a shrinking cash balance while paying final accounting, audit and wind-up costs. That can produce a negative return even when the fund is not a normal operating fund.
Funds in their first year. Establishment expenses can be incurred before the fund has a full year of investment returns. This can make a small new fund look structurally worse than an ongoing fund with the same investment approach.
Funds holding cash deliberately. Some trustees hold high cash allocations by choice, particularly before a planned acquisition, pension payment or wind-up. Low returns after fees may reflect the asset allocation rather than a failed SMSF structure.
None of this means small SMSFs are harmless. A $30,000 SMSF with ordinary accounting, audit and levy costs will usually be hard to justify on cost grounds alone. The point is that the data supports a warning about very small funds more clearly than it supports a single mandatory cutoff for everyone.
University of Adelaide research commissioned by the SMSF Association also found no material difference in performance patterns for SMSFs between $200,000 and $500,000, while finding that SMSFs below $200,000 were likely to achieve considerably lower net investment returns than funds at or above $200,000. That fits the more practical conclusion: balance matters, but it is not the only variable.
Where SMSF costs cross over with industry fund fees
The cost question is structural. SMSF administration and compliance costs are mostly fixed. Accounting, audit, the ATO supervisory levy and ASIC review fees do not rise in a neat percentage line with the fund balance.
Industry fund costs are more percentage-based. They scale as the balance grows. This means SMSFs tend to be expensive at low balances and more competitive at higher balances, especially where the fund is simple.
The table below uses illustrative annual SMSF administration and compliance costs of $3,000 to $4,000 for a straightforward fund holding listed assets and cash. It compares that with an alternative fund charging 0.5% of balance per year.
| Fund balance | Indicative SMSF admin cost | SMSF cost as % of balance | Alternative fund at 0.5% | Lower admin cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $80,000 | $3,000 | 3.75% | $400 | Alternative fund |
| $200,000 | $3,000 | 1.50% | $1,000 | Alternative fund |
| $500,000 | $3,500 | 0.70% | $2,500 | Alternative fund |
| $1,000,000 | $3,500 | 0.35% | $5,000 | SMSF |
| $2,000,000 | $4,000 | 0.20% | $10,000 | SMSF |
This is not a recommendation to choose either structure. It is a simplified cost comparison. Real SMSF costs can be higher where the fund holds property, crypto, unlisted assets, pensions or an LRBA. Real industry fund fees also vary by option, investment menu, advice arrangement and insurance.
For a deeper breakdown of setup and running costs, see the SMSF Costs and Fees Guide. If the question is whether to start a fund at all, the SMSF Setup Guide covers the broader suitability and trustee obligation issues.
How fixed costs compound over time
Annual fee differences matter because they compound. A small cost gap in year one can become a larger balance difference after 10 or 20 years.
These examples are deliberately simple. They assume constant gross returns, fixed contributions, no insurance changes, no establishment costs, no tax timing effects and no investment transaction costs. They are illustrations of the fee structure, not forecasts.
Starting with $80,000
Assume two members each start with $80,000, earn 7% gross per year, and add $15,000 at the start of each year. One stays in an industry fund charging 0.5% per year. The other uses an SMSF with fixed running costs of $3,000 per year.
| Year | Industry fund at 0.5% | SMSF at $3,000 fixed cost |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | ~$101,200 | ~$98,700 |
| Year 3 | ~$147,700 | ~$140,000 |
| Year 5 | ~$200,600 | ~$187,300 |
| Year 10 | ~$365,700 | ~$337,700 |
| Cumulative fees over 10 years | ~$10,400 | $30,000 |
At this starting balance, the SMSF structure pays roughly $19,600 more in fees over 10 years and finishes around $28,000 behind in this simplified example.
Starting with $500,000
Now assume a couple combines $500,000 into a new SMSF, earns 7% gross per year, and contributes $30,000 per year between them. The SMSF costs $3,500 per year. The alternative fund charges 0.5%.
| Year | Industry fund at 0.5% | SMSF at $3,500 fixed cost |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | ~$564,500 | ~$563,600 |
| Year 5 | ~$867,000 | ~$865,700 |
| Year 10 | ~$1,369,700 | ~$1,378,700 |
| Cumulative fees over 10 years | ~$43,800 | $35,000 |
From this larger starting point, the fixed-cost structure becomes more competitive over time. In this example, the SMSF overtakes around year seven and is ahead by year 10.
The lesson is not that $500,000 is always right or $80,000 is always wrong. The lesson is that fixed costs are unforgiving when the balance is low.
Get the weekly SMSF update from Super Informed
Free weekly email updates written for SMSF trustees.
What regulators have said about SMSF minimum balances
This debate is not new. The major reviews and guidance have generally landed on caution rather than prohibition.
The Cooper Review rejected a mandatory minimum
The 2010 Super System Review, commonly called the Cooper Review, considered whether SMSFs should have a minimum fund asset size.
The review acknowledged concerns about small SMSFs, including higher relative costs and weaker average outcomes. But it did not recommend a mandatory minimum. The panel said a mandated minimum SMSF asset size would act as an artificial barrier to entry, and that members should be able to choose with appropriate advice, disclosure and better comparable data.
The same chapter described the SMSF sector as largely successful and well-functioning, while recommending improvements around compliance, audit and service provider standards.
ASIC moved away from a single threshold
ASIC’s current INFO 274 guidance is directed at AFS licensees and representatives giving SMSF advice. It requires advisers to use professional judgement and consider a client’s relevant circumstances, including costs, risks, trustee obligations, investment knowledge and the implications of switching.
When ASIC released INFO 274 in December 2022, it consolidated and replaced earlier SMSF advice information sheets. The SMSF Association noted that the updated guidance removed the previous $500,000 threshold as an indicator of advice appropriateness and instead treated starting balance as one factor among many.
That does not make balance irrelevant. It means the question is not answered by balance alone.
The ATO registers and regulates; it does not assess suitability
The ATO administers and regulates the SMSF sector. It does not decide whether a fund is financially suitable before registration. That puts more responsibility on trustees, accountants and licensed advisers to test whether the structure makes sense before a rollover happens.
For trustees, this is an uncomfortable but important point: a fund can be legally established and still be a poor practical fit.
Who benefits from a minimum balance rule
There are two truths in tension.
First, very small SMSFs can harm members. A person rolling $30,000 into an SMSF without a clear contribution plan, specialist advice, replacement insurance review, or understanding of audit and tax obligations is taking on real risk. Stronger disclosure and better switching safeguards could prevent poor outcomes.
Second, a minimum balance rule would also reduce outflows from large funds. The funds in SMC’s switching analysis are the funds losing members and balances. If a minimum balance requirement stopped lower-balance members from switching to SMSFs, those balances would generally stay in the existing regulated fund or move elsewhere within the APRA-regulated system.
That conflict does not invalidate the consumer protection argument. It does mean the policy should be judged carefully. A blanket threshold is blunt. It cannot distinguish between:
- a member with $150,000, strong investment knowledge, low fixed costs and a plan to contribute aggressively; and
- a member with $150,000, no advice, no insurance review and no understanding of the trustee role.
Better safeguards may include clearer cost projections before rollover, stronger scrutiny of lead generation and switching advice, and better disclosure of what the member gives up when leaving an existing fund. Those controls target the risk more directly than a legal balance cutoff.
What existing SMSF trustees should watch
For an existing SMSF with a balance well above $500,000, the minimum balance push is unlikely to change day-to-day administration immediately. No legal minimum has been announced.
It still matters because it is part of a wider policy pattern. Recent SMSF debates have included the residential property LRBA restriction, Division 296, and whether SMSFs should be brought into the CSLR levy framework. Each proposal has its own rationale. Together, they show continuing pressure on SMSF access, cost and risk settings.
You can read more on those related issues here:
- SMSF Residential Property Borrowing Banned: What Trustees Need to Know
- Division 296 Tax: What SMSF Trustees Need to Know From 1 July 2026
- CSLR SMSF Levy: The $154M Compensation Problem Facing Australian Trustees
If you have adult children or family members considering an SMSF, the cost question is more immediate. An SMSF that starts small and grows quickly can be different from an SMSF that starts small and stays small. The distinction should be documented before the rollover, not discovered in the first annual accounts.
How to check your own SMSF cost ratio
Every trustee should know the fund’s annual cost ratio.
Start with the fund’s administration and compliance costs for the year:
- accounting and annual return preparation;
- annual audit;
- ATO supervisory levy;
- ASIC annual review fee, if the fund has a corporate trustee;
- administration software or service fees; and
- other recurring compliance costs.
Then divide that total by the fund balance, usually measured at 30 June.
For example, a fund with $3,000 in annual administration and compliance costs and a $300,000 balance has a 1.0% cost ratio before investment management fees, advice fees, insurance premiums or transaction costs.
As a broad sense-check, a cost ratio below 1% usually means administration costs are not dominating the fund. A ratio above 2% does not automatically mean the SMSF is wrong, but it should prompt a closer review of what is driving the cost and whether the balance is likely to grow.
The number should be one trustees know. If it only becomes visible when an industry body or regulator raises the issue, the fund’s own governance is already too loose.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a legal minimum balance for SMSFs in Australia?
No. There is no current legal minimum balance required to establish or maintain an SMSF in Australia. The current debate is about whether stronger minimum balance guidance or safeguards should be reintroduced.
What is the ideal minimum balance for an SMSF?
There is no single ideal minimum balance. For simple funds, the practical cost crossover often sits somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 depending on fixed costs and the alternative fund’s fees. A balance above $500,000 usually gives fixed SMSF costs more room to work, but the right answer depends on the fund’s actual costs, complexity, investment approach and trustee capability.
How much does it cost to run an SMSF per year?
A straightforward SMSF holding listed investments and cash may pay a few thousand dollars per year in accounting, audit, ATO levy, ASIC review and basic administration costs. More complex funds with property, borrowing, pensions, unlisted assets or crypto can cost more. The SMSF Costs and Fees Guide sets out the main cost categories.
Did ASIC recommend a $500,000 minimum balance for SMSFs?
ASIC’s earlier SMSF advice guidance used $500,000 as a reference point in assessing advice appropriateness. ASIC’s current INFO 274 guidance does not use that dollar threshold. It treats starting balance as one factor among costs, risks, trustee capability, investment knowledge, insurance and alternatives.
What did the Cooper Review say about SMSF minimum balances?
The 2010 Cooper Review rejected a mandatory SMSF minimum asset size. It acknowledged concerns about small funds but said a mandated minimum would act as an artificial barrier to entry and that better advice, disclosure and comparable data were the preferred path.
Does a low balance mean an SMSF is automatically unsuitable?
Not automatically, but it raises the evidence bar. A lower-balance SMSF needs a clear reason for using the structure, low and understood fixed costs, a realistic growth path, and proper consideration of insurance, investment strategy and trustee obligations.
What should trustees do if their SMSF cost ratio is high?
Review the drivers before making any structural decision. High costs may come from one-off events, complex assets, poor record keeping, property, borrowing, professional advice, or a balance that has fallen. Consider discussing the fund with an SMSF accountant or licensed adviser before winding up, restructuring or rolling back to another fund.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information only and does not constitute financial, legal, tax or investment advice. It does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Consider obtaining advice from an appropriately qualified professional before establishing, winding up, rolling over to, or changing an SMSF.