Self-managed super funds: A statistical overview 2009-10
Self-managed super funds: A statistical overview 2009-10
Purpose
As part of the Super System Review (the Review), A Statistical Summary of Self Managed Superannuation Funds was released on 12 December 2009. The majority of the Self Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSFs) information in that paper was sourced from both publicly available and previously unpublished ATO data.
In December 2011 we released a publication Self-managed superannuation funds A statistical overview 2008-09 (the overview), which was broadly in line with the Super System Review statistical summary using 2008-09 data.
This publication follows on from the overview using 2009-10 data. We propose to provide annual overviews.
Where appropriate, we refer to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data for comparisons to the SMSF sector.
Background
The ATO began regulating SMSFs in the 2000 financial year under the regulatory framework of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act).
For information about what constitutes an SMSF, and the ATO's regulatory role, go to www.ato.gov.au/smsf
Traditionally, SMSF data was collected on the super fund income tax return. From 2008, a new SMSF annual return (SAR) was developed to enhance the regulation of SMSFs and enable the collection of more reliable data.
Generally the data for this overview has been collected from:
- SAR
- SMSF registrations
- Auditor Contravention Reports (ACRs) lodged by approved auditors.
The SMSF sector remained the largest sector of the Australian superannuation industry, with 99% of the number of funds and 31% of the $1.34 trillion total super assets as at 30 June 2011.1
At 30 June 2011, there were around 456,000 SMSFs and $418 billion in assets.2 There were also approximately 867,000 members in the SMSF sector, about 7% of roughly 11.6 million members in Australian super funds.3
The data confirms the SMSF sector responded to government initiatives or changing economic circumstances. This was evident by changes in the level of contributions made to the sector and shifts in asset types held. There was a positive shift to listed shares and to a lesser extent other managed investments. This corresponds with a shift away from cash and term deposits, other assets and to a small extent non-residential property and the continued shift away from listed trusts.
The trend continued for members of new SMSFs to be from younger age groups than those of the total SMSF member population. However, SMSF members overall tended to be older than members of APRA regulated funds and had both higher average balances and higher average taxable incomes.
SMSFs directly invested 77% of their assets, mainly in cash and term deposits and Australian listed shares (a total of over 60%). While smaller SMSFs tended to favour cash and term deposits, larger SMSFs had a greater tendency to invest in listed shares.
Estimates of the return on assets for the SMSF sector showed positive returns in 2009-10. This compares to negative returns in 2007-08 and 2008-09. The trend is consistent with the total super industry, although the size of the positive returns for SMSFs was not as large as for non SMSFs.
Estimates of the operating expense ratio of SMSFs show they declined from 2007-08 to 2009-10. Further, the estimates show the ratio declined in proportion to the increase in the fund's asset size.
In the five years to 30 June 2011, SMSFs have been the fastest growing sector of the Australian superannuation industry.
During this period total super assets grew by 45%, while SMSF assets grew by 89%.4 The SMSF sector contributed the largest proportion with 47% of the total 45% growth in super assets.
Graph 1 shows the breakdown of the 45% growth in total super assets by fund type, based on APRA data.
A review of the three years to 30 June 2011 shows the growth in total super assets slowed to 17%. The breakdown of this growth between fund types has remained relatively unchanged.
Graph 1: Proportion of 5 Year Total Superannuation Growth by fund type
The overall growth in SMSF asset holdings can be attributed to continued establishment of new SMSFs, annual contributions and net rollovers into SMSFs and investment earnings (SMSF investment performance is discussed in section 7).
Between the years ended 30 June 2007 to 30 June 2011, SMSF numbers grew by 31% (see appendix 1, table 3).
Graph 2 shows the most significant rate of growth (13%) occurred in 2007, which coincided with the introduction of the government's Superannuation Simplification measures.5 Over the next three years, from 2007 to 2010, the growth rate fell to pre-2007 levels of around 6%, most likely influenced by global economic circumstances. In 2011 the growth in SMSF numbers returned to 2008 levels, potentially reflecting the improvement in community confidence in the economy and the adaptability of the SMSF sector.
Graph 2: Growth in the number of SMSFs from 2007 to 2011
Over this period, net establishment of new funds (establishments less wind ups) averaged over 29,500 a year (or approximately 2,500 a month) while wind ups averaged over 4,700 a year.6
Despite the continued establishment of new SMSFs, the largest proportion of SMSF funds have existed for over 10 years (42.8%) with 19.3% having existed for three years or less (see appendix 1, table 4).
Over the five year period to 30 June 2010, contributions to the SMSF sector averaged $34.2 billion a year (member $25 billion, employer $9.2 billion) (see appendix 1, table 1).
Contributions peaked in the year ended 30 June 2007 when the Super Simplification measures abolished reasonable benefit limits and introduced a $1 million transitional contribution limit.
Over the five year period, member contributions to SMSFs were greater than employer contributions by approximately three to one. With the exception of 2007 when it represented 84% of all contributions, member contributions were stable at below 69% each year (see appendix 1, table 1).
Over the five years, most member contributions were to SMSFs with assets worth between $500,000 and $5 million. Employer contributions were spread mostly across SMSFs with assets worth between $200,000 and $2 million, particularly in the years after 30 June 2008 (see appendix 1, table 1).
Given 2007 was an exceptional year for contributions to SMSFs, it is not unexpected that from 2007 to 2010, annual contributions to SMSFs fell by 67% compared to that of all funds which fell by 34%. Annual member contributions to SMSFs fell by 73% and employer contributions 37% over this period.
Graph 3 compares contributions to SMSFs proportionately to all super fund contributions for the years ended 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2010 as reported by APRA.7 It shows the downward trend of contributions to SMSFs since the surge in member contributions in 2007. Overall, SMSF contributions as a proportion of contributions to all funds fell from over 40% in 2007 to 20% in 2010 which is below 2006 levels.
As anticipated, government initiatives introduced from the year ended 30 June 2010, such as halving caps on concessional contributions, have slowed the growth in member contributions. Note that more recent events and data from the year ended 30 June 2011 onwards are not included in this overview.
Graph 3: Contributions to SMSFs as a percentage of Total Australian superannuation contributions (member, employer and total)
* The percentages are calculated as: SMSF (Member/Employer/Total) Contributions/Total Australian (Member/Employer/Total) Contributions
Over the five years to 30 June 2010, the $59.7 billion rolled into SMSFs consistently exceeded the $17.2 billion rolled out of SMSFs (see appendix 1, table 2).
On average it was reported over $11.9 billion is rolled into SMSFs and $3.4 billion is rolled out of SMSFs annually.
ATO data does not distinguish between amounts rolled between SMSFs and that rolled to or from non-SMSFs. However, the net result is an inward rollover amount of $42.4 billion over the five years.
Graph 4 shows that although over the five years inward rollovers were greater in absolute terms, outward rollovers grew from 21.3% of total SMSF rollovers to 23.3% in this period.
Graph 4: Total SMSF rollovers
The overall net inflow into SMSFs was $146.1 billion during the five years to 30 June 2010. Graph 5 shows this was predominantly attributable to the surge in contributions in the year ended 30 June 2007.
Since 2007, there has been a decline in the net flow of money into SMSFs of $66.7 billion to $14.6 billion a year. This represents a fall of 78%, which is predominantly due to the fall in contributions. As a result, both net transfers and benefit payments, which remained relatively constant, had a greater affect on total net flows.
Prior to 2007, benefit payments as a percentage of total contributions were below 34% (2006), while for the years after 2007, they were between 55-80%.
Graph 5: Breakdown of SMSF fund flows
*Net fund flow = Total contributions + Net transfers (inward - outward rollovers) - Benefit payments
SMSFs can be established with either a corporate trustee (where all members of the SMSF are directors of the corporate trustee) or with individual trustees (where all members of the SMSF are trustees).
At 30 June 2011, over 74% of SMSFs had individual trustees rather than a corporate trustee (see appendix 1, table 5).
Graph 6 shows that in recent years there has been a noticeable shift away from corporate trustees, with 90% of newly registered SMSFs in the year ended 30 June 2011 established with individual trustees.
Graph 6: SMSF trustee structure
Over the three years to 30 June 2011, there has been a 1.5% decline in SMSFs registering with a corporate trustee.
For the year ended 30 June 2010, 66% of SMSFs reported they were solely in the accumulation phase, whereas the remaining 34% reported they were making pension payments to some or all members and so considered to be in the pension phase.8
Analysis of the three years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2010 shows 7.9% of SMSFs who reported they were solely in the accumulation phase have shifted into the pension phase.
On average, those SMSFs which commenced pension payments in 2010 had been established for at least five years. Of SMSFs commencing pension payments in 2010, over 45% were over five years old, around 30% were less than two years old and almost 14% were operating in their first year.9
The average age for SMSFs to enter the pension phase remained relatively stable. Analysis shows however, from 2008 to 2010 there was a clear shift towards SMSFs commencing to pay pensions in the first year of existence.
All SMSFs must have their financial accounts and compliance with the SIS Act audited annually by an approved auditor. Hence, approved auditors play a key role in ensuring SMSF compliance with regulatory obligations.
In the year ended 30 June 2010, almost 13% of approved auditors were reported as also providing other services for SMSF clients such as a tax agent, accountant, financial advisor or administrator.
Note that at the time of release, the approved auditor information for the year ended 30 June 2010 in the following two paragraphs was not available
At 30 June 2008, it is estimated there were over 11,000 approved auditors, who conducted about 33 audits on average in the year ended 30 June 2009.10
Of these, 39% performed less than five SMSF audits in 2009. There are however, early indicators of a shift towards approved auditors performing the audit of larger numbers of SMSFs (see appendix 1, table 6).
Tax agents and accountants also play a significant role in the SMSF sector. At June 2011, SMSFs were serviced by around 14,600 different tax agents or accountants. Approximately 81% of SMSFs are registered with a tax agent, however, nearly all (98%) SMSF annual returns were lodged through a tax agent.11
Tax agents and accountants had an average of 25 registered SMSF clients. The majority had only a small number, with 57% having 10 or less and 18% (or 2,646) a single SMSF client. In contrast, 5% or 696 tax agents and accountants registered more than 100 SMSFs (see appendix 1, table 7).
At 30 June 2011, there were over 867,000 members in the SMSF sector, of whom 54% were male and 46% female. Generally, female members tended to be younger than male members, with a higher percentage falling within all age groups, apart from those 65 and over where males exceeded females by almost 6% (see appendix 1, table 8).
At 30 June 2010 almost 69% of SMSFs had two members, just below 23% were single member SMSFs and about 4% had three and four members each.12
Also almost 28% of SMSF members received pension payments, including members who were fully or partially in the pension phase.13 This is an increase of over 6% from 2008 to 2010.
At 30 June 2011 81% of SMSF members were older than 45 years of age (see appendix 1, table 8).14 Although generally SMSF members are ageing, recently established SMSFs tend to have younger members than the total SMSF member population.
Graph 7 shows that of the almost 7,500 SMSFs established in the June 2011 quarter, 7.4% of members were aged 65 and over.15 In comparison, over 22% of the total SMSF member population were aged 65 and over at June 2011. Members below 35 years of age represented over 11% of these newly established funds, compared to just over 5% for the whole SMSF member population. Also, 64% of new members were less than 55 years of age compared to just over 44% of members of all SMSFs.
Graph 7: Proportion of SMSF members by age range
In the non-SMSF sector only 4% of account holders were over 65, while in the SMSF sector only 6.3% of members were under 35 years of age (see appendix 1, table 9).16
Graph 8 provides a comparison of SMSF and non-SMSF member ages at June 2010. In the SMSF sector, almost 68% of members were over 50 years of age compared to 25% of members in the non-SMSF sector.17 In turn, there were a higher proportion of members below 50 years of age who held accounts in the non-SMSF sector (75%), with just over 32% of SMSF members in this age range.
Graph 8: Age distribution of SMSF members and non-SMSF members as at June 2010
The average taxable income of all SMSF members in the year ended 30 June 2010 was almost $91,000. Those aged 35 to 59 had the highest average taxable income of over $103,000 (see appendix 1, table 9). The average taxable income of all other age groups was below $77,000. Members over 65 had the lowest average taxable income of just over $60,000.
SMSF members of all ages had a higher average taxable income in 2010 than non-SMSF members which was on average just under $51,000 (see appendix 1, table 9).
Graph 9 shows SMSF trustees aged 35 to 49 had the most significant difference in average taxable income, earning approximately $114,000 compared to non-SMSF members earning below $61,000.
For the 35 and under age ranges and those aged 60 to 65 the difference was relatively consistent, but the gap reduced for those aged over 65.
Graph 9: 2010 Average taxable income of SMSF members and non-SMSF members by age range
At 30 June 2010, the average SMSF member balance was almost $467,000 (see appendix 1, table 10), which is almost 19 times the size of the average account balance of non-SMSFs of just under $25,000.18
Graph 10 shows that as SMSF members aged, their balances increased and their taxable incomes decreased. The average SMSF member balance ranged from $52,600 for members under 35 to almost $773,000 for those over 65 (see appendix 1, table 9).
While the average balance of SMSF members over 60 increased, the proportion of members in the older age ranges declined. The largest proportion of members was aged 50 to 59, with an average balance of over $458,000.
Graph 10: 2010 Taxable income and average balance of SMSF members by age range
Graph 11 shows that over the five years to 30 June 2010, average SMSF member account balances have grown. The fall of 10% to 2009 from the peak of almost $477,000 in 2007 had been partially restored in 2010 to an average member balance of almost $467,000. The median member balance also recovered to almost $286,000 as at 2010.
Graph 11: SMSF and SMSF member asset sizes
Over the five years to 30 June 2010, the proportion of members with less than $100,000 asset balances continued to decrease from 29.2% to 22.3%. Those with asset balances over $1 million rose from 7% to 11.5% (see appendix 1, table 11).
Graph 12 shows a continued shift in member accounts towards the larger asset ranges over the five years. Most members held assets of between $100,000 and $500,000 (48.7%). The proportion of members with assets within this range has remained relatively constant over the five year period.
Graph 12: SMSF member asset sizes over 5 years
Note that the growth of asset line is not actual but representative of the percentage change. Ranges above $2m are amalgamated as the small proportion of members with assets over $5m tend to distort the findings.
A comparison of the three years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2010 in Graph 13, confirms the shift away from smaller account balances to larger ones. The proportion of member balances within assets ranges were generally in line with the five year trend, apart from the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
Graph 13: SMSF member asset sizes over 3 years
Note that the growth of asset line is not actual but representative of the percentage change. Ranges above $2m are amalgamated as the small proportion of members with assets over $5m tend to distort the findings.
SMSF assets grew over the five year period to 30 June 2010 with a peak average of over $912,000 in the year ended 30 June 2007. Following a fall of 10.2% to just over $819,000 by 30 June 2009, average assets recovered to over $888,000 at 30 June 2010 (see appendix 1, table 10).
This compares to the median SMSF asset size as at 30 June 2010 of almost $512,000 (over $489,000 and $463,000 for 2008 and 2009 respectively).
The difference between the average and median asset figures reflects the number of SMSFs with over $1m in assets (from 19% in 2006 to 26.7% in 2010).
As mentioned previously in relation to total SMSF asset growth, the lower average and median SMSF assets in 2008 and 2009 coincided with the global economic downturn.
At 30 June 2010, 49% of SMSFs had assets between $200,000 and $1 million (see appendix 1, table 11). Generally, over the five years to 30 June 2010, the proportion of SMSF assets across asset ranges followed a similar pattern to that of SMSF member assets.
The continued growth of the SMSF sector revealed a shift in asset holdings of SMSFs to the higher asset ranges. Graph 14 shows that for the five year period, the proportion of SMSFs holding assets of less than $500,000 fell, while the proportion of SMSFs holding greater than $500,000 in assets rose.
Graph 14: SMSF asset sizes over 5 years
Note that the growth of asset line is not actual but representative of the percentage change. Ranges above $2m are amalgamated as the small proportion of members with assets over $5m tend to distort the findings.
A comparison of the three years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2010 confirms a more even shift of SMSFs to the higher asset ranges. The proportion of SMSFs with assets greater than $200,000 rose while the proportion with assets below $200,000 declined.
Graph 15: SMSF asset sizes over 3 years
Note that the growth of asset line is not actual but representative of the percentage change. Ranges above $2m are amalgamated as the small proportion of members with assets over $5m tend to distort the findings.
At 30 June 2010, the two most significant SMSF asset holdings were in Australian listed shares and cash and term deposits (see appendix 1, table 13). Graph 16 shows that 60.1% of all SMSF assets were directly invested in these two asset classes.
Graph 16: SMSF asset allocation
Note: Certain asset types have been amalgamated. See Table 13 for the complete list of assets.
Graph 17 shows significant shifts of SMSF asset holdings for the years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2009, as compared to the years ended 30 June 2009 to 30 June 2010. There was a positive shift to listed shares and to a lesser extent other managed investments in 2010. This corresponds with a shift away from cash and term deposits, other assets and to a small extent non-residential property and the continued shift away from listed trusts. This reinforces the flexibility of SMSF investment strategies.
Graph 17: Change in percentage of total SMSF assets by asset type
Graph 18 shows the shifts over the same financial years (2008 to 2009 as compared to 2009 to 2010 years) in the proportion of SMSFs holding these assets. There continued to be an increase in the proportion of funds holding cash and term deposits, listed shares, non-residential real property and other assets.
Graph 18: Change in percentage of SMSF population holding assets by asset type
A comparison of Graphs 17 and 18 shows that in 2010, as a proportion of total SMSF assets, cash and term deposits held fell, while the proportion of SMSFs holding cash and term deposits rose. This indicates that while more funds held cash and term deposits in the 2010 financial year as compared to the 2009 financial year, in dollar terms there was a shift away from this type of investment. In contrast, while listed shares also experienced a rise in the number of funds holding these assets, this was complemented with a rise in the dollar value held. These shifts are likely a result of regained confidence in the world economy.
At 30 June 2010, 77% of the SMSF sector assets were reported as directly invested by the SMSF with just over 19% invested in trusts and managed investment structures. The remaining investments held included overseas and miscellaneous assets such as collectibles or other assets (see appendix 1, table 13).
The SMSF asset types were relatively consistent across asset ranges in 2010 (see appendix 1, table 14). The major asset holdings were cash and term deposits and Australian listed shares. SMSFs with $200,000 in assets or less were more likely to hold cash and term deposits. Those with more than $200,000 in assets had a greater tendency to invest in listed shares and held a relatively larger proportion of non-residential real property and unlisted trusts.
A comparison of SMSFs in the accumulation phase to the pension phase shows almost 34% of SMSFs are in the pension phase but held 52% of reported assets for the year ended 30 June 2010.19
In 2010, SMSFs reporting in the pension phase had very similar assets to SMSFs in the accumulation phase (see appendix 1, table 15). The only obvious difference was SMSFs in the pension phase generally held less property but more listed share assets.
At 30 June 2010, just over 10% of SMSFs reported holding all of their investments in one asset class, representing approximately only 5% of all SMSF assets (see appendix 1, table 16).
Smaller SMSFs were more likely to hold only one class of assets, almost 38% of those with less than $50,000 in assets (see appendix 1, table 17). This is consistent with the fact that smaller SMSFs held the highest proportion of assets in cash and term deposits, over 54% for those with less than $50,000 in assets (see appendix 1, table 14).
Less than 7% of SMSFs fell within each asset range over $500,000 and held only one class of asset, (see appendix 1, table 17) indicating that as funds grew, there was a clear tendency to spread investments.
SMSF asset concentrations remained relatively constant for the three years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2010.
Investment performance
Care must be taken when using SMSF performance figures, particularly when making comparisons. While the methodology used to estimate SMSF performance resembles APRA's, the data collected is not the same.
Notwithstanding, the estimated return on assets (ROA) for SMSFs in the year 30 June 2010 was positive (7.6%) following negative returns for the years ended 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009
(-6.2% and -6.7% respectively).20
Comparisons to APRA regulated funds of more than four members showed the same trend for the three years (-8.1% and -11.5% and 8.9% respectively).21
Graph 19 shows that majority of SMSFs experienced a negative ROA for the years 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009 (almost 70% and 71% respectively). However, in 2010 almost 80% of SMSFs had a positive ROA, while the majority (over 52%) had a ROA of greater than 5%.
Graph 19: SMSF return on assets
The estimated SMSF ROA continues to show a direct relationship between SMSF size and the ROA. The larger the SMSF the more improved the ROA (see appendix 1, table 12).
Graph 20 shows the estimated average ROA by SMSF size for the three years ended 30 June 2008 to 30 June 2010. All SMSFs with $100,000 or more in assets had a positive ROA in 2010. Compared to 2008 and 2009, ROA had improved across all asset ranges during 2010, coinciding with the improved confidence in the world economy.
Graph 20: SMSF return on assets by fund size
As with estimated SMSF investment performance data, care must be taken when using the operating expense ratio figures, as comparisons may not be meaningful. While the methodology used to estimate the operating expense ratio is as close as possible to APRA's, the data collected is not the same (see appendix 2).
Notwithstanding, the estimated average operating expense ratio of SMSFs fell from 0.69%, to 0.59% and 0.54% over the years ended 30 June 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively.22
Estimates of average SMSF operating expenses in 2010 were almost $4,840 compared to $6,389 and $5,159 in 2008 and 2009 respectively.
SMSFs with less than $50,000 in assets had almost a 7% average operating expense ratio compared to SMSFs with more than $500,000 in assets that had an average of less than 1% (see appendix 1, table 19).
As can be expected, graph 21 shows the estimated operating expense ratio for SMSFs declined in direct proportion to the increased size of the funds.
Graph 21: SMSF operating expense ratio by fund size
The majority of SMSFs had an estimated operating expense ratio of less than 1% (64.7% of SMSFs in 2010), the highest proportion (almost 38% in 2010) had an estimated operating expense ratio of 0.25% or less (see appendix 1, table 20).
Approved auditors play a major role in regulating SMSFs. In the year ended 30 June 2010, the average audit fee was $60723, decreasing each year from 2008 to 2010. Fees varied significantly depending on the services provided. The average audit fee for those who completed only the SMSF audit was $571. Approved auditors reported as providing other services charged an average fee of $882 (see appendix 1, table 21).
In the year ended 30 June 2010, over 53% of SMSFs paid less than $500 to approved auditors for audit fees, while over 3% paid $2,000 or more.
As part of an annual audit, approved auditors are required to submit to the ATO Auditor Contravention Reports (ACRs) disclosing any SMSF contraventions according to ATO reporting guidelines. These range from administrative contraventions to more serious contraventions, such as breaches in relation to investments in in-house assets.
Overall, the percentage of the SMSF population with ACRs for the audit years ended 30 June 2004 to 30 June 2009 remained relatively stable at approximately 2% of all SMSFs each year.24
There were 8,792 SMSFs that had ACRs lodged containing 21,357 contraventions in the year ended 30 June 2011. This is an increase from 30 June 2010 of just over 8% in the number of SMSFs with an ACR, but a rise of almost 20% in contraventions. To 30 June 2011, just under half of contraventions are reported as rectified.
The most commonly reported contraventions continued to be loans or financial assistance to members (almost 21%), while in-house assets and separation of assets constitute almost 18% and 13% respectively. In monetary terms, these two contraventions represent almost 27% and just over 27% respectively of the reported contraventions up to 30 June 2011 (see appendix 1, table 23).
The demographic of SMSFs with ACRs generally align with the SMSF population. Analysis shows there is no correlation between the receipt of an ACR and the SMSF asset size, SMSF income range, years since establishment or the structure of the SMSF.
Table 1: Contribution flows
This table illustrates the total value of contributions to SMSFs during each financial year and the mean and median amounts over those periods, along with contributions by fund size.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the Total Contributions figures used are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report - June 2011.
SMSF contributions
|
|
Total Contributions
|
Mean Contributions
|
Median Contributions
|
Member ($m)
|
Employer($m)
|
Member ($)
|
Employer($)
|
Member ($)
|
Employer($)
|
2006
|
13,107
|
7,568
|
112,748
|
42,258
|
9,830
|
17,375
|
2007
|
56,268
|
11,050
|
378,392
|
56,390
|
59,600
|
24,420
|
2008
|
22,217
|
10,159
|
111,449
|
48,941
|
25,000
|
23,497
|
2009
|
18,144
|
10,381
|
89,296
|
47,195
|
18,550
|
21,770
|
2010
|
15,072
|
6,945
|
68,961
|
31,224
|
11,400
|
20,372
|
SMSF member contributions by fund size (% per year)
|
$1- $50k
|
>$50k -
$100k
|
>$100 -
$200k
|
>$200k -
$500k
|
>$500 -
$1m
|
>$1m -
$2m
|
>$2m -
$5m
|
>$5m -
$10m
|
>$10m
|
2006
|
0.42%
|
0.71%
|
2.57%
|
11.49%
|
19.65%
|
24.66%
|
23.74%
|
8.90%
|
7.86%
|
2007
|
0.11%
|
0.18%
|
0.66%
|
4.21%
|
32.30%
|
23.76%
|
29.54%
|
7.52%
|
1.71%
|
2008
|
0.46%
|
0.83%
|
2.76%
|
12.86%
|
21.99%
|
27.24%
|
25.76%
|
6.62%
|
1.48%
|
2009
|
0.51%
|
0.91%
|
3.06%
|
13.88%
|
24.45%
|
28.02%
|
23.31%
|
4.85%
|
1.01%
|
2010
|
0.59%
|
0.91%
|
3.01%
|
14.13%
|
24.62%
|
27.98%
|
22.95%
|
4.84%
|
0.97%
|
SMSF employer contributions by fund size (% per year)
|
$1- $50k
|
>$50k -
$100k
|
>$100 -
$200k
|
>$200k -
$500k
|
>$500 -
$1m
|
>$1m -
$2m
|
>$2m -
$5m
|
>$5m -
$10m
|
>$10m
|
2006
|
1.33%
|
3.01%
|
7.79%
|
23.55%
|
26.42%
|
22.69%
|
12.60%
|
1.90%
|
0.71%
|
2007
|
0.79%
|
1.81%
|
4.93%
|
16.92%
|
22.07%
|
24.11%
|
21.66%
|
5.49%
|
2.22%
|
2008
|
1.05%
|
2.44%
|
6.19%
|
19.97%
|
24.93%
|
23.83%
|
17.71%
|
3.29%
|
0.60%
|
2009
|
1.23%
|
2.55%
|
6.41%
|
20.49%
|
25.67%
|
23.73%
|
16.49%
|
2.95%
|
0.47%
|
2010
|
1.66%
|
2.80%
|
7.02%
|
21.75%
|
25.91%
|
22.71%
|
14.94%
|
2.76%
|
0.46%
|
Table 2: Rollover flow (into and out of SMSFs)
This table illustrates the total value of rollovers into and out of SMSFs during each financial year and the mean and median amount over those periods and by fund size.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the Total Rollover figures used are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
SMSF rollovers
|
Total rollovers
|
Mean rollovers
|
Median rollovers
|
Inward ($m)
|
Outward($m)
|
Inward ($)
|
Outward($)
|
Inward ($)
|
Outward($)
|
2006
|
6,455
|
1,748
|
160,206
|
285,165
|
42,194
|
90,000
|
2007
|
10,096
|
3,002
|
212,084
|
371,623
|
63,706
|
110,000
|
2008
|
15,707
|
4,630
|
268,483
|
437,298
|
83,193
|
115,000
|
2009
|
13,125
|
3,517
|
217,796
|
307,012
|
75,641
|
85,000
|
2010
|
14,283
|
4,331
|
233,339
|
314,386
|
84,674
|
87,115
|
Inward rollovers by fund size (% per year)
|
$1- $50k
|
>$50k -
$100k
|
>$100 -
$200k
|
>$200k -
$500k
|
>$500 -
$1m
|
>$1m -
$2m
|
>$2m -
$5m
|
>$5m -
$10m
|
>$10m
|
2006
|
1.07%
|
2.27%
|
6.86%
|
21.12%
|
25.50%
|
19.86%
|
15.32%
|
4.87%
|
3.13%
|
2007
|
0.60%
|
1.31%
|
4.34%
|
14.37%
|
19.95%
|
23.72%
|
21.06%
|
7.57%
|
7.07%
|
2008
|
0.52%
|
1.22%
|
4.02%
|
14.90%
|
21.95%
|
24.62%
|
22.02%
|
7.50%
|
3.26%
|
2009
|
0.71%
|
1.78%
|
5.17%
|
17.77%
|
23.70%
|
23.79%
|
19.56%
|
5.48%
|
2.03%
|
2010
|
0.60%
|
1.54%
|
5.09%
|
17.66%
|
23.57%
|
23.56%
|
19.85%
|
5.59%
|
2.54%
|
Outward rollovers by fund size (% per year)
|
$1- $50k
|
>$50k -
$100k
|
>$100 -
$200k
|
>$200k -
$500k
|
>$500 -
$1m
|
>$1m -
$2m
|
>$2m -
$5m
|
>$5m -
$10m
|
>$10m
|
2006
|
12.08%
|
2.94%
|
4.14%
|
11.57%
|
13.85%
|
16.53%
|
20.55%
|
10.61%
|
7.74%
|
2007
|
9.20%
|
2.40%
|
2.17%
|
7.17%
|
10.83%
|
18.08%
|
26.52%
|
11.83%
|
11.80%
|
2008
|
7.03%
|
1.78%
|
2.72%
|
7.17%
|
14.21%
|
23.04%
|
29.44%
|
11.81%
|
2.80%
|
2009
|
6.55%
|
1.69%
|
2.66%
|
8.21%
|
15.73%
|
23.39%
|
29.10%
|
8.38%
|
4.30%
|
2010
|
6.40%
|
2.27%
|
2.10%
|
7.44%
|
14.88%
|
23.83%
|
28.68%
|
9.17%
|
5.23%
|
Table 3: Yearly SMSF population and asset size
This table illustrates the:
- number of SMSFs that were established or wound up during each financial year
- overall number of SMSFs and members
- total assets in SMSFs.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the figures used in this table are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
SMSF population and assets - annual
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
Establishments
|
44,854
|
32,189
|
31,567
|
29,609
|
33,106
|
Windups
|
4,089
|
5,270
|
7,987
|
5,796
|
487
|
Net establishments
|
40,765
|
26,919
|
23,580
|
23,813
|
32,619
|
Total SMSFs
|
349,541
|
376,460
|
400,040
|
423,853
|
456,472
|
Total members
|
668,234
|
713,471
|
760,674
|
805,978
|
867,863
|
Total assets ($m)
|
318,044
|
319,999
|
324,969
|
373,840
|
418,469
|
Table 4: SMSF age distribution
This table illustrates the age distribution of SMSFs, based on years since their establishment date.
SMSF age by establishment (as at 30/06/2011)
|
Proportion of SMSFs
|
In 1st year of establishment
|
6.8%
|
>1 - 2 years
|
6.3%
|
>2 - 3 years
|
6.2%
|
>3 - 5 years
|
16.2%
|
>5 - 10 years
|
20.9%
|
>10 years
|
42.8%
|
N/A
|
0.8%
|
Total
|
100%
|
Average SMSF age
|
7 years
|
Table 5: SMSF trustee type
This table illustrates the trustee structure (either corporate or individual trustees) of the SMSF population as at 30 June 2011 plus new registrations for the years 30 June 2009 to 2011.
Trustee
Type
|
All SMSFs
as at 30/06/2011
|
New registrations during
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
Corporate
|
26.38%
|
3,669
|
11.36%
|
3,235
|
10.34%
|
2,916
|
9.87%
|
Individual
|
73.62%
|
28,623
|
88.64%
|
28,041
|
89.66%
|
26,638
|
90.13%
|
Total
|
100.00%
|
32,292
|
100.00%
|
31,276
|
100.00%
|
29,554
|
100.00%
|
Table 6: Number of audits performed by approved auditors
The 2009-10 data is not yet available.
This table illustrates the proportion of approved auditors to the number of audits they performed within the years ended 30 June 2007 to 30 June 2010.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
No. of audits
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
1
|
24.5%
|
22.8%
|
21.1%
|
2 - 4
|
18.7%
|
18.2%
|
18.0%
|
5 - 10
|
14.7%
|
13.8%
|
14.3%
|
11 - 25
|
17.0%
|
17.1%
|
17.0%
|
26 - 50
|
13.2%
|
13.7%
|
13.8%
|
51 - 100
|
7.6%
|
8.7%
|
9.2%
|
101 - 250
|
3.4%
|
4.2%
|
4.9%
|
> 250
|
1.1%
|
1.5%
|
1.7%
|
Total
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
Note: the years are the financial years of SMSFs being audited and not when the audit actually took place.
Table 7: Number of SMSFs registered per tax agent
This table illustrates the distribution of tax agents by the number of SMSFs identified as their clients at the time of SMSF registration at 30 June 2011.
No of SMSFs registered
|
Number of tax agents
|
1
|
2,646
|
2
|
1,361
|
3
|
998
|
4
|
769
|
5
|
600
|
6-10
|
1,938
|
11-20
|
2,040
|
21-100
|
3,566
|
101-500
|
676
|
>500
|
20
|
Total
|
14,614
|
Table 8: SMSF member age ranges
This table illustrates the approximate age and gender distribution of SMSF members at 30 June 2011, along with the age distribution of members of SMSFs established in the June 2011 quarter. The age ranges in this table align with those reported in Self-managed super fund statistical reports.
This is an estimate based on Australian Business Register (ABR) data. To ensure consistency, the percentages of members used for all SMSFs are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
|
Gender age ranges
|
|
All members of new funds
(Jun 11 Qtr)
|
Age ranges
|
Male
|
Female
|
Total
|
< 25
|
1.0%
|
1.0%
|
1.0%
|
1.7%
|
25 - 34
|
4.2%
|
4.3%
|
4.2%
|
9.7%
|
35 - 44
|
12.9%
|
14.9%
|
13.8%
|
22.7%
|
45 - 54
|
24.1%
|
26.7%
|
25.3%
|
29.9%
|
55 - 64
|
32.8%
|
33.8%
|
33.3%
|
28.5%
|
> 64
|
25.1%
|
19.2%
|
22.4%
|
7.4%
|
Unknown
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Total
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
All ages
|
53.6%
|
46.4%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
Table 9: SMSF member age, balances and taxable income, contrasting with non-SMSF member taxable income
This table illustrates the approximate age and gender distribution of SMSF members at 30 June 2010, along with the average and median account balances. Plus a comparison of SMSF members' average taxable income to non-SMSF members' average taxable income. The age ranges in this table align with those as reported in APRA's Annual Superannuation Bulletin.
This is an estimate based on Australian Business Register (ABR) data.
SMSF Members
|
Non-SMSF members*
|
|
Male
|
Female
|
% of All SMSF Members
|
Average balance
($)
|
Median balance
($)
|
Average taxable income
($)
|
Average taxable income
($)
|
< 35
|
6.3%
|
6.2%
|
6.3%
|
52,599
|
20,992
|
64,680
|
39,422
|
35 - 49
|
24.3%
|
27.9%
|
26.0%
|
183,830
|
99,267
|
114,094
|
60,750
|
50 - 59
|
28.6%
|
31.2%
|
29.9%
|
458,506
|
266,496
|
103,745
|
58,833
|
60 - 65
|
20.2%
|
19.5%
|
19.9%
|
682,135
|
427,958
|
76,199
|
48,099
|
> 65
|
20.6%
|
15.1%
|
18.0%
|
772,610
|
466,051
|
60,440
|
43,486
|
Unknown
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
30,617
|
Total
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
485,157
|
246,283
|
90,754
|
50,776
|
All ages
|
52.5%
|
47.5%
|
100.0%
|
|
|
|
|
*The non-SMSF member population are those individuals, excluding SMSF members, for whom the ATO has received a member contribution statement.
Table 10: Average and median asset sizes
This table illustrates the average and median SMSF fund asset sizes and member account balances at the end of each financial year.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the average figures used in this table are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
Average per member
|
$347,461
|
$476,932
|
$449,934
|
$430,406
|
$466,909
|
Median per member
|
$214,795
|
$295,290
|
$271,637
|
$257,952
|
$285,952
|
Average per SMSF
|
$666,997
|
$912,258
|
$853,039
|
$819,125
|
$888,433
|
Median per SMSF
|
$374,366
|
$504,655
|
$489,012
|
$463,288
|
$511,719
|
Table 11: Asset Ranges by fund and member size
This table illustrates the approximate distribution of SMSFs by fund asset sizes and by members account balances at the end of each financial year.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the percentages used in this table are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
Asset Ranges per SMSF
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
$0-$50k
|
11.0%
|
9.0%
|
9.7%
|
7.8%
|
6.8%
|
>$50k-$100k
|
8.1%
|
6.2%
|
6.4%
|
6.8%
|
5.9%
|
>$100k-$200k
|
14.1%
|
11.3%
|
11.7%
|
12.5%
|
11.5%
|
>$200k-$500k
|
27.1%
|
24.0%
|
24.7%
|
26.2%
|
25.9%
|
>$500k-$1m
|
20.7%
|
21.6%
|
21.8%
|
22.2%
|
23.1%
|
>$1m-$2m
|
12.8%
|
16.8%
|
15.8%
|
15.4%
|
16.5%
|
>$2m-$5m
|
5.3%
|
9.3%
|
8.4%
|
7.8%
|
8.7%
|
>$5m-$10m
|
0.7%
|
1.5%
|
1.3%
|
1.1%
|
1.3%
|
>$10m
|
0.2%
|
0.3%
|
0.2%
|
0.2%
|
0.2%
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Table 11 continued: Asset Ranges by fund and member size
Asset Ranges per member
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
>$0-$50k
|
14.7%
|
11.0%
|
12.2%
|
12.7%
|
10.8%
|
>$50k-$100k
|
14.5%
|
11.6%
|
12.1%
|
12.6%
|
11.5%
|
>$100k-$200k
|
20.7%
|
17.7%
|
18.2%
|
18.7%
|
18.3%
|
>$200k-$500k
|
29.1%
|
28.5%
|
29.2%
|
29.6%
|
30.4%
|
>$500k-$1m
|
13.9%
|
17.9%
|
17.0%
|
16.3%
|
17.5%
|
>$1m-$2m
|
5.3%
|
9.6%
|
8.4%
|
7.7%
|
8.5%
|
>$2m-$5m
|
1.5%
|
3.2%
|
2.6%
|
2.3%
|
2.7%
|
>$5m-$10m
|
0.2%
|
0.3%
|
0.2%
|
0.2%
|
0.2%
|
>$10m
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Table 12: Average return on assets (ROA) by fund size
This table illustrates the average ROA of SMSFs by asset size. The ROA is calculated by determining the net earnings, and comparing this to average assets during the financial year to determine the percentage return on assets.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
|
$1 - $50k
|
>$50k - $100k
|
>$100k - $200k
|
>$200k - $500k
|
>$500k - $1m
|
>$1m - $2m
|
>$2m
|
2008
|
-18.33%
|
-13.58%
|
-11.28%
|
-8.99%
|
-7.73%
|
-6.39%
|
-4.54%
|
2009
|
-20.88%
|
-14.97%
|
-11.77%
|
-9.37%
|
-7.63%
|
-6.22%
|
-5.43%
|
2010
|
-8.64%
|
-1.48%
|
2.46%
|
5.23%
|
6.87%
|
7.71%
|
8.90%
|
Table 13: 2010 SMSF asset allocations
This table illustrates the value and proportion of assets held by the SMSF population for each type of asset listed on the 2010 SMSF annual return as well as the mean and median value. It follows that SMSFs will have different asset allocations in individual cases.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the total monetary amounts used in this table are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
|
|
($M)
|
% of total SMSF assets
|
% of SMSF Population holding those assets
|
Mean* ($)
|
Median* ($)
|
Listed trusts
|
18,966
|
5.1%
|
32.7%
|
138,826
|
47,252
|
Unlisted trusts
|
33,187
|
8.9%
|
21.3%
|
389,032
|
147,788
|
Insurance policy
|
186
|
0.0%
|
0.3%
|
147,353
|
69,669
|
Other Managed Investments
|
19,014
|
5.1%
|
14.1%
|
327,143
|
137,583
|
Cash and term deposits
|
104,232
|
27.9%
|
98.4%
|
253,200
|
83,500
|
Debt securities
|
2,396
|
0.6%
|
3.4%
|
173,823
|
55,000
|
Loans
|
2,129
|
0.6%
|
3.3%
|
168,306
|
50,000
|
Listed Shares
|
120,397
|
32.2%
|
68.2%
|
429,576
|
206,148
|
Unlisted Shares
|
4,023
|
1.1%
|
8.5%
|
120,854
|
30,000
|
Derivatives and instalment warrants
|
665
|
0.2%
|
1.1%
|
156,080
|
37,699
|
Non-residential real property
|
41,276
|
11.0%
|
14.1%
|
711,473
|
446,173
|
Residential real property
|
13,509
|
3.6%
|
6.2%
|
515,459
|
380,000
|
Artwork, collectibles, metal or jewels
|
581
|
0.2%
|
1.8%
|
77,833
|
23,749
|
Other assets
|
10,464
|
2.8%
|
79.9%
|
32,938
|
6,537
|
Overseas shares
|
939
|
0.3%
|
2.8%
|
91,050
|
22,687
|
Overseas Non-residential real property
|
63
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
482,297
|
165,000
|
Overseas Residential real property
|
108
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
275,941
|
181,892
|
Overseas Managed Investments
|
294
|
0.1%
|
0.5%
|
166,519
|
59,511
|
Other overseas assets
|
1,409
|
0.4%
|
3.7%
|
98,321
|
29,163
|
Total Australian and Overseas Assets
|
373,840
|
100.0%
|
|
907,879
|
511,719
|
*Mean and median values are only applicable to those funds that held those types of assets.
Table 14: 2010 SMSF asset allocations by fund size
This table illustrates the proportion of SMSF assets held for each type of asset listed on the 2010 SMSF annual return by the asset size of SMSFs.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data. To ensure consistency, the percentages used in this table are those reported in the Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
|
|
$0-$50k
|
>$50k-
$100k
|
>$100k-
$150k
|
>$150k-
$200k
|
>$200k-
$500k
|
>$500k-
$1m
|
>$1m-
$2m
|
>$2m-
$5m
|
>$5m-
$10m
|
>$10m
|
Listed trusts
|
2.45%
|
3.69%
|
4.83%
|
5.29%
|
5.90%
|
5.83%
|
5.17%
|
4.58%
|
4.12%
|
3.69%
|
Unlisted trusts
|
2.33%
|
4.17%
|
5.58%
|
6.42%
|
7.14%
|
7.66%
|
8.35%
|
9.74%
|
12.65%
|
14.94%
|
Insurance policy
|
0.03%
|
0.11%
|
0.05%
|
0.08%
|
0.06%
|
0.05%
|
0.05%
|
0.06%
|
0.02%
|
0.01%
|
Other Managed Investments
|
2.45%
|
3.32%
|
4.46%
|
4.97%
|
5.59%
|
5.49%
|
5.18%
|
4.86%
|
4.44%
|
5.02%
|
Cash and term deposits
|
54.25%
|
45.29%
|
39.81%
|
36.32%
|
30.99%
|
29.09%
|
28.22%
|
26.16%
|
23.45%
|
19.37%
|
Debt securities
|
0.17%
|
0.23%
|
0.21%
|
0.27%
|
0.40%
|
0.56%
|
0.64%
|
0.73%
|
0.87%
|
1.06%
|
Loans
|
1.44%
|
1.45%
|
1.16%
|
0.93%
|
0.65%
|
0.47%
|
0.53%
|
0.54%
|
0.73%
|
1.55%
|
Listed Shares
|
24.77%
|
30.95%
|
32.11%
|
33.21%
|
32.96%
|
32.82%
|
32.35%
|
31.60%
|
31.73%
|
30.90%
|
Unlisted Shares
|
1.90%
|
1.93%
|
1.58%
|
1.53%
|
1.05%
|
0.89%
|
0.90%
|
1.13%
|
1.59%
|
2.35%
|
Derivatives and instalment warrants
|
0.16%
|
0.28%
|
0.31%
|
0.39%
|
0.31%
|
0.21%
|
0.14%
|
0.12%
|
0.21%
|
0.33%
|
Non-residential real property
|
0.72%
|
1.58%
|
2.94%
|
3.87%
|
7.13%
|
9.34%
|
11.26%
|
13.27%
|
13.19%
|
11.56%
|
Residential real property
|
0.32%
|
0.74%
|
1.46%
|
2.00%
|
3.78%
|
4.19%
|
3.87%
|
3.46%
|
2.68%
|
2.01%
|
Artwork, collectibles, metal or jewels
|
0.71%
|
0.77%
|
0.54%
|
0.41%
|
0.26%
|
0.16%
|
0.14%
|
0.12%
|
0.08%
|
0.11%
|
Other assets
|
7.43%
|
4.56%
|
4.10%
|
3.56%
|
3.08%
|
2.63%
|
2.52%
|
2.83%
|
3.15%
|
5.02%
|
Overseas shares
|
0.26%
|
0.30%
|
0.26%
|
0.24%
|
0.22%
|
0.18%
|
0.21%
|
0.28%
|
0.45%
|
0.96%
|
Overseas Non-residential real property
|
0.06%
|
0.02%
|
0.02%
|
0.03%
|
0.02%
|
0.01%
|
0.01%
|
0.02%
|
0.03%
|
0.01%
|
Overseas Residential real property
|
0.03%
|
0.09%
|
0.12%
|
0.07%
|
0.04%
|
0.03%
|
0.03%
|
0.02%
|
0.01%
|
0.01%
|
Overseas Managed Investments
|
0.08%
|
0.07%
|
0.06%
|
0.06%
|
0.07%
|
0.05%
|
0.08%
|
0.08%
|
0.12%
|
0.22%
|
Other overseas assets
|
0.44%
|
0.44%
|
0.40%
|
0.34%
|
0.36%
|
0.34%
|
0.34%
|
0.39%
|
0.49%
|
0.89%
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Table 15: 2010 SMSF asset allocations by SMSFs in accumulation and pension phases
This table illustrates the proportion of assets held by accumulation and pension phase SMSFs, for each type of asset listed on the 2010 SMSF annual return.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
Asset allocation
|
SMSFs in accumulation phase
|
SMSFs in pension phase
|
Listed trusts
|
4.4%
|
5.6%
|
Unlisted trusts
|
9.7%
|
8.7%
|
Insurance policy
|
0.1%
|
0.0%
|
Other Managed Investments
|
4.6%
|
5.5%
|
Cash and term deposits
|
27.3%
|
27.6%
|
Debt securities
|
0.4%
|
0.9%
|
Loans
|
0.5%
|
0.7%
|
Listed Shares
|
29.8%
|
34.5%
|
Unlisted Shares
|
1.3%
|
0.9%
|
Derivatives and instalment warrants
|
0.3%
|
0.1%
|
Non-residential real property
|
12.5%
|
9.7%
|
Residential real property
|
4.6%
|
2.5%
|
Artwork, collectibles, metal or jewels
|
0.2%
|
0.1%
|
Other assets
|
3.3%
|
2.6%
|
Overseas shares
|
0.3%
|
0.2%
|
Overseas Non-residential real property
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Overseas Residential real property
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Overseas Managed Investments
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
Other overseas assets
|
0.4%
|
0.4%
|
Total Australian and Overseas Assets (%)
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
Table 16: 2010 asset concentrations
This table illustrates the distribution of SMSFs that have 50% or more of their assets by value invested in one particular asset class. For example, 42.9% of SMSFs hold 80% of their assets in one particular asset class, representing 30% of total SMSF assets.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
*Asset Concentration
|
Proportion of SMSFs
|
Proportion of SMSF Assets
|
100%
|
10.2%
|
4.9%
|
90%
|
29.1%
|
19.1%
|
80%
|
42.9%
|
30.0%
|
70%
|
56.5%
|
40.4%
|
60%
|
70.7%
|
50.5%
|
50%
|
86.3%
|
60.4%
|
*An asset concentration of 100% indicates all assets are held within a particular asset class.
Table 17: 2010 asset concentrations by fund size
This table illustrates, by fund size, the distribution of SMSFs that have 50% or more of their assets by value invested in one particular asset class.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
|
Asset concentration
|
Fund size
|
100%
|
90%
|
80%
|
70%
|
60%
|
50%
|
$1-$50k
|
37.6%
|
60.6%
|
72.0%
|
81.0%
|
89.0%
|
96.9%
|
>$50k-$100k
|
21.0%
|
47.4%
|
61.6%
|
73.1%
|
83.7%
|
94.6%
|
>$100k-$200k
|
14.9%
|
39.1%
|
53.9%
|
67.1%
|
79.3%
|
92.2%
|
>$200k-$500k
|
9.7%
|
30.6%
|
45.7%
|
59.8%
|
73.7%
|
88.3%
|
>$500k-$1m
|
6.6%
|
23.6%
|
37.6%
|
52.0%
|
67.4%
|
84.9%
|
>$1m-$2m
|
5.0%
|
19.5%
|
32.3%
|
46.5%
|
62.2%
|
81.0%
|
>$2m-$5m
|
3.0%
|
15.6%
|
27.7%
|
41.3%
|
57.6%
|
76.9%
|
>$5m-$10m
|
1.9%
|
13.5%
|
25.0%
|
39.1%
|
55.2%
|
74.8%
|
>$10m
|
2.0%
|
16.5%
|
28.4%
|
42.9%
|
58.0%
|
75.1%
|
Table 18: 2010 asset concentrations by asset class
This table illustrates, by asset class, the distribution of SMSFs that have 50% or more of their assets by value invested in that asset class.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
|
Asset Concentration
|
Asset type
|
100%
|
90%
|
80%
|
70%
|
60%
|
50%
|
Listed trusts
|
0.1%
|
0.7%
|
1.2%
|
1.8%
|
2.3%
|
3.1%
|
Unlisted trusts
|
0.2%
|
1.7%
|
2.7%
|
3.8%
|
4.9%
|
6.1%
|
Insurance policy
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Other Managed Investments
|
0.1%
|
1.3%
|
2.1%
|
2.8%
|
3.5%
|
4.3%
|
Cash and term deposits
|
8.8%
|
13.8%
|
16.2%
|
19.0%
|
22.2%
|
26.4%
|
Debt securities
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.2%
|
Loans
|
0.0%
|
0.2%
|
0.3%
|
0.4%
|
0.4%
|
0.5%
|
Listed Shares
|
0.3%
|
7.2%
|
13.6%
|
19.6%
|
25.6%
|
31.6%
|
Unlisted Shares
|
0.0%
|
0.2%
|
0.3%
|
0.4%
|
0.6%
|
0.7%
|
Derivatives and instalment warrants
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.2%
|
Non-residential real property
|
0.2%
|
2.0%
|
3.6%
|
5.0%
|
6.4%
|
7.8%
|
Residential real property
|
0.1%
|
0.8%
|
1.4%
|
2.0%
|
2.6%
|
3.2%
|
Artwork, collectibles, metal or jewels
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.2%
|
Other assets
|
0.4%
|
0.8%
|
1.0%
|
1.3%
|
1.5%
|
1.8%
|
Overseas shares
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
Overseas Non-residential real property
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Overseas Residential real property
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Overseas Managed Investments
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
Other overseas assets
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
0.1%
|
Total
|
10.2%
|
29.1%
|
42.9%
|
56.5%
|
70.7%
|
86.3%
|
Table 19: Average operating expense ratios to assets by SMSF fund size
This table illustrates average SMSF operating expense ratios by fund size. The operating expenses of an SMSF are calculated by summing various deduction labels from its income tax return. The total is then compared to its average assets to get a ratio of expenses to assets.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
|
$1-$50k
|
>$50k-$100k
|
>$100k-$200k
|
>$200k-$500k
|
>$500k-$1m
|
>$1m-$2m
|
>$2m
|
2008
|
6.27%
|
4.94%
|
2.36%
|
1.49%
|
0.88%
|
0.56%
|
0.38%
|
2009
|
7.01%
|
3.57%
|
2.25%
|
1.27%
|
0.73%
|
0.47%
|
0.29%
|
2010
|
6.95%
|
3.61%
|
2.41%
|
1.24%
|
0.67%
|
0.41%
|
0.25%
|
Table 20: Operating expense ratio ranges
This table illustrates the distribution of SMSFs across various ranges of operating expense ratios.
These figures are estimates based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
Operating expense ratio range
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
<=0.25%
|
30.6%
|
34.6%
|
38.0%
|
>0.25% to 0.5%
|
13.4%
|
12.4%
|
11.7%
|
>0.5% to 0.75%
|
9.9%
|
9.1%
|
8.3%
|
>0.75% to 1%
|
7.9%
|
7.3%
|
6.7%
|
>1% to 1.5%
|
11.8%
|
10.8%
|
9.9%
|
>1.5% to 2%
|
7.7%
|
7.0%
|
6.7%
|
>2% to 3%
|
8.0%
|
7.6%
|
7.3%
|
>3% to 5%
|
5.6%
|
5.7%
|
5.7%
|
> 5%
|
5.0%
|
5.6%
|
5.7%
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
Table 21: 2010 SMSF audit fees
This table illustrates average and median SMSF audit fees reported on the 2010 SMSF annual return. It also distinguishes SMSFs whose auditors performed additional services for the fund and those who only performed the audit service.
These figures are estimated based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
Auditor provided other services
|
Average audit fee
|
Median audit fee
|
Yes
|
$882
|
$550
|
No
|
$571
|
$468
|
Total
|
$607
|
$490
|
Note: The data for this table excludes those SMSFs that did not report an audit fee >$0 in their 2010 Annual Return.
Table 22: SMSF audit fee by ranges
This table illustrates the proportion of SMSFs that are within certain audit fee ranges for the years ended 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010.
These figures are estimated based on SMSF income tax and regulatory return form data.
Audit fee range
|
2009
% of SMSFs
|
2010
% of SMSFs
|
$>0 to $499
|
50.2%
|
53.4%
|
$500 to $999
|
34.6%
|
33.8%
|
$1000 to $1999
|
11.3%
|
9.6%
|
$2000 and above
|
4.0%
|
3.2%
|
Total
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
* The estimates are based on reported fees above $0
Table 23: Types of contraventions reported to the ATO
This table illustrates the general type of contraventions that have been reported since the start of contravention reporting in 2005 (up to 30 June 2011) by approved auditors to the ATO.
Contravention types
|
Number %
|
Value %
|
Loan to member/financial assistance
|
20.6%
|
14.6%
|
Administrative type contraventions
|
13.0%
|
1.8%
|
In-house assets
|
17.7%
|
26.7%
|
Separation of assets
|
13.2%
|
27.3%
|
Operating standard type contraventions
|
8.3%
|
6.8%
|
Sole purpose
|
7.7%
|
6.5%
|
Borrowing
|
7.9%
|
5.9%
|
Investment at arms length
|
7.3%
|
7.5%
|
Other
|
2.7%
|
0.6%
|
Acquisition of assets from related parties
|
1.5%
|
2.4%
|
Total
|
100.0%
|
100.0%
|
Appendix 2 - data issues
Data limitations and differences in methodologies impact the analysis of SMSFs and any comparison of SMSF with non-SMSF sectors.
In 2010 the ATO moved to a new Integrated Core Processing (ICP) system for the collection and handling of its data holdings which has impacted on the reproduction of certain historical SMSF data. Continual improvements will be made to the methodologies of reporting SMSF information, which may result in changes to figures in the future.
Differences in methodologies can include:
- Valuation and accounting practices might lead to incorrect calculations of ROA. In particular, APRA regulated funds must report assets at market value, while SMSFs are only required to do so under certain circumstances. That said, anecdotal evidence suggests that market value reporting is becoming more common for SMSFs - particularly for those funds invested substantially in listed shares, managed funds and cash assets.
- Treatment of tax might differ between APRA regulated funds and many SMSFs. APRA regulated funds generally make full provision for income taxes on an accruals basis, as do many SMSFs. Again, however, SMSFs are not required to do so and many do not (in which case tax is effectively treated on a cash basis).
- Pension funds exemption from income tax on investment earnings will mean pensions funds have higher after tax returns than an identically invested accumulation fund. Given that SMSFs have a proportionately higher number of member accounts in the pension phase, there is potential for the ROA of the whole SMSF population to be overstated.
- Under or overstated costs as cost amounts for SMSFs are determined based on amounts included in the SMSF annual return (that is deductible expenses) rather than the actual expenditure on fund costs. For example, such costs could include:
- Life insurance and related cover, where only a portion of the premium is deductible depending on the type of insurance cover.
- Opportunity costs as the cost of a trustee's time and effort in operating the SMSF are not captured. These costs are more likely to be reflected in APRA regulated funds.
- Costs incurred in pension phase SMSFs, where only a part of an SMSF's total expenditure is tax deductible (because the fund is not entitled to a deduction for expenses incurred in deriving exempt income). Relying exclusively on tax deductible expenses to identify operating costs might understate the costs of pension SMSFs by up to 100% (for an SMSF entirely in pension phase).
- Invisible costs potentially arise when assets are held through an external investment structure, such as a trust or managed investment scheme ('investment structure'), rather than directly. Under these circumstances, fees charged by the investment structure will be expensed within the structure and only the net return remitted to the SMSF via distributions. This will not undermine the ROA calculation (because whether the expenses are incurred directly or in another vehicle, the net return to the SMSF is identical). However, the fees charged by the investment structure will not be taken into account in operating expense calculations because the calculations only capture expenses actually occurring within the SMSF. This can occur in both SMSFs and APRA regulated funds.
- Advice costs, how (and whether) advice is received and paid for also effects comparisons.
- Establishment costs, which are incurred by SMSF members, but due to their capital nature are not deductible or able to be amortised over a defined life.
- Management Expense Ratios (MER) of public offer funds, there are a number of other membership features in a public offer super fund that make its published MER figures not directly comparable with the operating expense ratio of an SMSF (such as contribution fees, buy/sell spreads, insurance premiums and exit fees) but this is outside the scope of this publication.
1 APRA 2011, June 2011 Quarterly Superannuation Performance, APRA Statistics, 8 September 2011, (see table "Key statistics", pg 7).
2 ATO 2011, Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
3 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, Employment Arrangements, Retirement and Superannuation, Apr to Jul 2007 (Re-issue), Cat. No. 6361.0, ABS, Canberra, p16.
4 APRA 2007 and APRA 2011, June 2007 Quarterly Superannuation Performance, 27 September 2007 (see table 'Key statistics', pg 7), June 2011 Quarterly Superannuation Performance, APRA Statistics, 8 September 2011 (see table "Key statistics", pg 7).
5 In 2006, Government announced major reforms known as Superannuation Simplification which included a suite of measures aimed to simplify complexities faced by retirees, improve retirement incomes and provide greater flexibility.
6 Note: Average wind up figures include understated figures for the year ended30 June 2011.
7 APRA 2010, Annual Superannuation Bulletin, APRA statistics, 19 January 2011(pg 28).
8 Based on 2010 SAR lodged data.
9 Based on 2010 SAR lodged data and ABR data.
10 Based on 2008 SAR lodged data.
11 Based on 2010 SAR lodged data.
12 ATO 2011, Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
13 Based on 2010 SAR lodged data.
14 Age ranges used as per ATO 2011, Self-managed super fund statistical report, for comparison purposes.
15 ATO 2011, Self-managed super fund statistical report, June 2011.
16 Age ranges used are as produced in the APRA Annual Superannuation Bulletin, for comparison between members of SMSFs and members of non-SMSF funds.
17 APRA 2010, Annual Superannuation Bulletin, APRA statistics, 19 January 2011(pg 25).
18 APRA 2010, Annual Superannuation Bulletin, APRA statistics, 19 January 2011 (pg 32).
19 Based on 2010 SAR lodgements.
20 Calculations based on SMSF 2008 return and 2009 and 2010 SAR reported data.
21 APRA 2010, Annual Superannuation Bulletin, APRA Statistics, 19 January 2011 (pg 33).
22 Calculations based on 2008 SMSF returns and 2009 and 2010 SAR reported data.
23 Based on 2010 SAR lodgments.
24 As per ATO ACR data as at June 2011.
Last Modified: Thursday, 7 March 2013
|