The name ‘SMSF’ could be driving away potential trustees due to the connotations of increased administrative and regulatory burdens.
Michael Hutton, head of wealth management at HLB Mann Judd Sydney, said SMSFs were misnamed and a better title would be ‘Personal Super Fund’.
“The title ‘SMSF’, and the frequently used alternative name ‘DIY Super’, suggests that those who have such a fund must do all the investment, structuring and ongoing management work themselves, when the reality is this is not the case,” he said.
Hutton said many people believe the portfolio management and overall administration must fall to them as a trustee, but are unaware that advisers can help with things like contribution strategies, ensuring legislative and administration requirements are met and more.
“People with sufficient retirement savings shouldn’t allow concerns about the administration and regulatory requirements to over-ride all other considerations and prevent them from setting up a SMSF,” Hutton said.
The change of name to ‘Personal Super Fund’ would reflect the true benefits of SMSFs — that they are each set up to reflect the personal position and wishes of the trustees, he said.
The impact of identity theft and its threat to superannuation savings were highlighted in a case that went before the Federal Court at the end of 2023.
A recent NSW Supreme Court decision is an important reminder that while super funds may be subject to restrictive superannuation and tax laws, in essence they are still a trust and subject to equitable and common law claims, says a legal expert.
New research from the University of Adelaide has found SMSFs outperformed APRA funds by more than 4 per cent in 2021–22.
The SMSF Association has made a number of policy recommendations for the superannuation sector in its pre-budget submission to the government.