The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) appears to have validated the common industry belief that you need to have a balance in excess of $200,000 in a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) if you want to generate a positive return.
The ASIC validation has been revealed in an answer to a question on notice from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on economics in which Labor front-bencher, Andrew Leigh asked whether, on average, SMSFs with balances below $200,000 actually produced negative returns.
ASIC confirmed Leigh’s question noting that for the period 2016-17 and for the preceding two financial years, SMSFs with a balance of less than $200,000 had a negative return on assets when compared to SMSFs with a balance of more than $200,000.
“In 2016-17, the ROA [return on assets] for SMSFs with a balance of more than $100,000, but less than $200,000 was -0.48%, whereas the ROA for SMSFs with a balance of more than $200,000, but less than $500,000 was 4.65%,” the ASIC answer said.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.