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.
Superannuation funds have posted another year of strong returns, but this time, the gains weren’t powered solely by Silicon Valley.
Australia’s $4.1 trillion superannuation system is doing more than funding retirements – it’s quietly fuelling the nation’s productivity, lifting GDP, and adding thousands to workers’ pay packets, according to new analysis from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
Large superannuation accounts may need to find funds outside their accounts or take the extreme step of selling non-liquid assets under the proposed $3 million super tax legislation, according to new analysis from ANU.
Economists have been left scrambling to recalibrate after the Reserve Bank wrong-footed markets on Tuesday, holding the cash rate steady despite widespread expectations of a cut.