Data released by BGL using the almost 180,000 SMSF clients on its Simple Fund 360 platform as a sample showed that annual SMSF running costs for the 2018 financial year were $1,709 for funds with a balance of under $200,000; $2,736 for funds with a balance between $200,000 and $500,000; and $2,896 for funds with a balance between $500,000 and $1 million.
The annual costs rose to $3,299 for SMSFs between $1 million and $1.5 million; $3,947 for funds between $1.5 million and $3 million; and $5,774 for those with balances over $3 million.
The costs to run a self-managed fund had also remained fairly stable over time and in some cases decreased, with costs for those in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket decreasing from $2,648 in 2015 to $2,376 in 2018.
Costs had also come down for SMSFs between $500,000 and $1 million, from $3,314 in 2015 to $2,896 in 2018, and for those between $1 million and $1.5 million, from $3,856 in 2015 to $3,299 in 2018.
The company stated that in light of this data, the $13,900 annual cost quoted in ASIC’s fact sheet, Self-managed superannuation funds: Are they for you?, was incorrect and deceptive when it came to giving new trustees an idea of what was involved in running an SMSF.
“The real data tells a very different story from the ASIC document — so different that one must question ASIC’s motive for the release of this misleading document,” BGL said.
“This is what we get when the figures produced by one regulator (ATO) are used by another (ASIC) that seem to have a total lack of understanding of the dataset.”
The software provider said ASIC should clarify how it came to the $13,900 figure in its document, and added that it would be releasing further data to counteract the performance figures shown in the corporate regulator’s fact sheet.
Totally agree with Gary
Do these figures include accounting / bookkeeping / Tax / Financial Advice etc.
I imagine this is amalgamated with investment expenses such as Management fees on portfolios, the gross rental expenditure, also insurance premiums, etc as these are all reported separately from gross income in the annual return. Likely where they get their 13k figure from, which is misleading to say the least in the context of the ASIC release.
ASIC …. A-Stupid-Inaccurate-Calculation……looks like they added industry, corporate funds and Gov’t Funds……. or do they have in mind MORE useless red tape – like Auditing the Auditors etc … stay turned
Agree. Our costs are about $7000 for $1.5 million. ASIC should be lobbying to get rid of useless complications like transfer balances.
Is it possible that ASIC are using total costs including financial planning advice? They may get their data from deductible expenses claimed on the super funds tax return. BGL would just be showing the Admin & Audit costs. If it includes financial planning advice, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $13,000 ish. But, If you’re including FP advice fees for SMSF’s you have to include them for Retail and Industry Funds if you’re comparing the Pair 🙂
ASIC said they calculated the average cost via averaging deductions claimed in SMSF returns. You have to wonder if that included deduction for Exempt Pension Income, or property costs including interest & depreciation, which are not related to running a SMSF at all.
Agree with BGL. In my practice with dozens of SMSFs, most were $2000-$3000
The running cost provided by BGL are very similar to my practice. Once again the ASIC is out there and missing in action
Surely if you are going to release a fact sheet, the one thing you need to do is get the facts right?
The award for Best Comment goes to..
What, Govt ASIC / ATO / APRA and Industry Funds all stacked to the hilt with failed Left Wing Labor pollies that for lack of reason hate SMSF and hate people saving and managing for themselves.
What rubbish ASICs stance has far more to do with 1) they hate SMSF because they generate more complaints 2) ASIC are in the pocket of mainstream funds that are big LNP donors