SMSFs outperform large funds 4 years out of 6

Note: The ATO publishes an annual report about SMSFs for each financial year. This article covers the latest SMSF performance data available from the ATO, as at January 2014. The ATO will provide updated performance data (for year ending 30 June 2013) in early 2015.

A common argument put forward against individuals starting a self-managed super fund is that budding SMSF trustees could lose their hard-earned super savings through inexperienced investing, and bad investment decisions. Until relatively recently, there wasn’t much evidence confirming or denying this ‘world view’ mainly proffered by the large super fund sector.

The ATO now publishes SMSF performance data and the real story is quite startling. SMSFs have outperformed the large fund sector (corporate, industry and retail funds) in four years out of six.

SMSFs outperformed large super funds for the four years ended 30 June 2007, 30 June 2008, 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2012, but large super funds performed better for the years ended 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2011.

Investment performance

Financial year SMSFs (%) Large funds (%) Outperformer
2007 16.7% 14.5% SMSF
2008 -5.9% (loss) -8.1% (loss) SMSF
2009 -6.7% (loss) -11.5% (loss) SMSF
2010 7.7% 8.9% Large funds
2011 7.7% 7.8% Large funds
2012 1.0% 0.5% SMSF

Note: While the methodology used to estimate SMSF performance resembles APRA’s, the data collected is not the same. The data in the table above is sourced from four ATO reports: SMSFs – A statistical overview 2011-2012, SMSFs – A statistical overview 2010-2011, SMSFs-A statistical overview 2009-10, and SMSFs – A statistical overview 2008-09.

SMSFs outperform large funds 4 years out of 6   Super Guide

Source: Table created by SuperGuide using ATO performance data. 

For more information on SMSF investment performance and asset allocation see the following related SuperGuide articles:

You can also check out the following ATO reports on the ATO website:

© Copyright Trish Power 2009-2014

Copyright for this article belongs to Trish Power, and cannot be reproduced without express and specific consent.

IMPORTANT: SuperGuide does not provide financial advice. SuperGuide does not answer all questions posted in the comments section. SuperGuide may use your question or comment, or use questions from several readers, as the basis for an article topic that we publish on the SuperGuide website. We will not disclose names or personal information in these articles. Comments provided by readers that may include information relating to tax, superannuation or other rules cannot be relied upon as advice. SuperGuide does not verify the information provided within comments from readers. Readers need to seek independent advice about their personal circumstances.

Comments

  1. Robert R says:

    Hi Trish,

    Interesting data but the ATO comparison is a bit of a blunt tool.

    I followed the link and had a look at the full report. What struck me most is the very high correlation between ROA and fund size with the SMSFs >$2M showing much better performance than even the SMSFs $1m – $2m.

    Just why the performance is so much better for the largest SMSFs over the next band of SMSFs is not explained in the report. We could conjecture that people with the highest balances are the most engaged, or perhaps people with such high balances are more likely to engage professional investment advice, or perhaps those with the highest balances are less adverse to higher risk (volatility) investments. In any case, there is no such correlation in the large funds where performance is very much dependent on which fund the member is invested in rather than the balance of their account.

    If you compare the average performance of the different bands of SMSFs against large funds, you will see that the performance of most common band ($200k-$500K) is somewhat worse than the large funds average for years 2010, 2011, 2012, much the same for 2008 and SMSFs are better in 2009 – overall, the performance of the large funds over the 5 year period is considerably superior. All bands below the $200K -$500K band perform much worse than large funds, the $500K -$1M band looks like it is neck and neck, in the bands $1M-$2M and >$2m SMSFs perform better than the large funds.

    The other interesting data is the very low level of overseas investments in SMSFs. The period covered by the report is one where returns from overseas equities were somewhat lower than Australian equities and featured a rising dollar. We are now in a period where overseas equities are outperforming Australian equities and the Australian dollar is falling. Since the majority of large fund members are in the balanced options of funds that have considerably more exposure to overseas equities than SMSFs, it will be interesting to see the comparison in performance in the next ATO report.

    Regards,
    Bob

  2. Wow. 3 out of 5, eh? That wouldn’t have anything to do with ‘chance’? Any guess on what the 2012 results might be, given the tendency for SMSFs to hold cash and property, and the performance of sharemarkets last year?

    I’m willing to guess, and I think large super funds outperformed, which would put average performance at 50/50 by year. In other news, the sky is blue.

    • Looks more like 4 out of 6 by my count ….with an accumulated (but not adjusted , rough I know) gain of 7.5% to the SMFS over the large funds

  3. I manage my own SMSF and over the last 9 years we came in 2nd when compared with the best 25 superfund performers in the country with a 8.5% return per annum. Just because some SMSF’s dont get it right, dont penalise the ones that do with more regulations.

Leave a Comment

*