Introduction to Superannuation Systems and Structures – Part 2

Retail Super Funds

Retail funds are superannuation funds operated by financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, or dedicated wealth management firms. They are run to make a profit (shareholders expect a return). Retail funds come in many forms; a prevalent form today is the platform or wrap account, which provides a wide investment menu and administrative convenience, often used by financial advisers for their clients.

Advantages: Retail funds typically offer a wide range of investment options. Through a retail platform, a member might access dozens or even hundreds of managed funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), direct shares, term deposits, and other assets all under the super umbrella. This appeals to those who want more control over how their super is invested (or whose advisers want to implement specific strategies). Retail funds also often come with robust online tools, reporting, and customer service. Many retail super platforms integrate seamlessly with financial planning software, making portfolio monitoring and adjustments easier for advisers. Some retail funds have specialist investment options (like access to particular international funds, or socially responsible investment choices) that an industry fund might not offer.

Disadvantages: Historically, retail funds had a reputation for higher fees than industry funds, partly because of their profit margin and the commissions that used to be paid to advisers (before conflicted commissions were banned for super after 2013). In recent times, competition and regulation have driven down fees, but one should still watch for administrative fees and investment management fees on certain options. Generally, if a retail fund is offering a lot of choice and flexible features, there might be additional costs for those. Performance can vary widely in retail funds because it depends on which investment options you choose – a retail fund doesn’t have a single performance number, as each member’s outcome is based on their chosen portfolio. Another consideration: retail funds are often used in conjunction with an adviser’s services; for purely self-directed individuals who don’t need the extra features, a retail fund’s bells and whistles might not justify the cost.

Retail funds are well-suited for clients who desire extensive investment choice and/or are working with a financial adviser to actively manage their super portfolio. For example, a high-net-worth investor might use a retail wrap so their adviser can mix and match different managed funds and direct shares to fit a precise asset allocation or to implement tax strategies (like capital gains harvesting) within super. Retail funds are also sometimes the only option for certain specific needs – for instance, if a client wants their super invested in a particular boutique fund or sector, they might only get access through a retail platform.

Public Sector and Corporate Funds

Public sector and corporate funds are super arrangements limited to certain employer groups (government agencies or particular companies). They often have unique benefits for their members due to employer sponsorship.

Public sector funds (for government employees) and corporate funds (for employees of a specific company or corporate group) might offer tailored benefits such as defined benefit pensions (especially in older public sector schemes) or subsidized fees and insurance. They frequently enjoy economies of scale and are run with member interests in mind (public sector funds in particular often operate similarly to industry funds, as not-for-profit).

The key aspect is that access is restricted – you generally can’t join a corporate or public sector fund unless you work for the relevant employer (or have in the past, in which case you might have a preserved benefit there). If a client has money in such a fund, an adviser will carefully consider the pros and cons of staying versus moving. Often, these funds can be quite beneficial: for example, some public sector funds have defined benefit sections that provide guaranteed incomes or lump sums far in excess of what equivalent contributions might have yielded in a normal accumulation fund. Surrendering those benefits by rolling out is usually not advised. Other times, an older corporate fund might have higher fees or less flexibility (since many corporate funds have been outsourcing or closing), in which case moving to a modern fund could be beneficial once the person leaves that employer.

In short, for clients currently in or with legacy benefits in public sector/corporate funds, one must evaluate any unique advantages before making changes. These funds are not open to the general public, but they can be excellent for those who have them. When leaving the employer, sometimes members can stay in the fund (in a “retained member” accumulation section), but sometimes their money might be moved or need to be moved. Advisers ensure any transitions are done in a way that preserves benefits (for example, timing the crystallization of a defined benefit to maximize it, or confirming comparable insurance can be obtained elsewhere before exiting a corporate fund that had cheap cover).

Self-Managed Super Funds (SMSFs)

A Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) is a private super fund managed directly by its members, who act as trustees. An SMSF can have up to 6 members (often a couple or a family), and it gives those members full control over how the super is invested and administered (within the rules of super law). Essentially, an SMSF lets you be your own super fund.

Advantages: The primary appeal of an SMSF is control and flexibility. SMSF trustees can invest in almost any asset they choose (provided it’s allowed under super laws) – this includes assets not available in public funds, such as direct residential or commercial property, private company shares, collectibles (with some restrictions), certain types of precious metals, etc. This broad investment choice allows for strategies like purchasing a business property through super (common for small business owners), or assembling a bespoke portfolio of direct shares and other assets according to one’s own investment philosophy. SMSFs also allow for more direct control of tax strategies – for instance, an SMSF trustee can manage the timing of asset sales to optimize capital gains tax within the fund, or allocate earnings to members’ accounts in a certain way (subject to the fund’s trust deed and equitable treatment). Additionally, SMSFs can offer estate planning advantages – they often have the ability to create binding death benefit nominations that don’t lapse, or even pay benefits in more flexible ways (like setting up certain types of testamentary trusts via the SMSF upon a member’s death). For members with large balances, SMSFs can be cost-effective: many SMSF costs are flat (e.g., a fixed annual audit fee, a fixed administration fee if you use a service, etc.), so as your balance grows, the percentage cost of running the fund can become quite low compared to percentage-based fees of large funds. For example, a $1 million SMSF might have $4k of annual costs (around 0.4%), which could be competitive with retail/industry funds’ fees.

Disadvantages: Running an SMSF comes with significant responsibility. The trustees are legally responsible for complying with superannuation and tax laws – there is no external fund manager to blame if things go wrong. This means keeping proper records, arranging an independent audit every year, lodging the SMSF’s annual return, and ensuring all investments and contributions/benefit payments comply with the rules. There are penalties for breaches (the ATO, which regulates SMSFs, can apply fines to trustees personally for administrative breaches, and serious breaches can result in the fund being deemed non-compliant – which would mean its assets are taxed punitively). An SMSF also demands time and effort from its members – essentially you’re taking on the role that an entire investment team would perform in a larger fund. Managing an investment portfolio, keeping up with regulatory changes, and performing administrative tasks can amount to a substantial commitment (often over 100 hours a year in total). Not everyone has the financial knowledge or desire to do this. Costs can be a downside for smaller SMSFs: while you control what services you pay for, certain base costs (annual audit, accounting, perhaps software or admin service fees) make it generally accepted that an SMSF with a very small balance (say below $200k) may not be cost-effective compared to low-fee APRA funds. ASIC and the ATO have both indicated that SMSFs under a certain size might not justify their costs and workload unless there are very compelling reasons.

There are also risk management considerations: SMSFs by nature lack the regulatory prudential oversight that APRA funds have. For instance, if an SMSF loses money due to a failed investment or even fraud (say, the trustee fell for a scam), there is no government compensation scheme to bail it out (APRA funds, in rare fraud or insolvency events, have had government support or compensation arrangements – SMSFs explicitly do not). SMSF members also cannot access the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) for complaints about decisions of the fund (since they are the decision-makers), though they could complain about services (like if an auditor or financial planner gave negligent service to the SMSF).

Given these factors, SMSFs are typically suitable for engaged, knowledgeable investors who want a high degree of control and have a sufficient balance to justify it. It often appeals to business owners, experienced investors, or those who want to execute specific strategies (like gearing into property via an SMSF, which is allowable under strict conditions). If a client is considering an SMSF, an adviser will weigh the pros and cons carefully and discuss whether the client (and their co-trustees) are prepared for the responsibility. There are also ongoing regulatory expectations – for example, the ATO expects SMSFs to consider diversification (they may question an SMSF investment strategy that puts “all eggs in one basket” unless a rationale is documented).

In recent years, many SMSF trustees utilize specialist administration firms and seek professional advice (accounting, legal, financial advice) to help manage their fund. So while it’s “self-managed,” one doesn’t have to do it all alone – but those professional services do add to the cost.

Regulatory Framework and Industry Oversight

Superannuation in Australia operates under a comprehensive regulatory framework designed to protect members and ensure the system functions properly. The framework includes the laws governing super, the regulators that enforce those laws, and the obligations of those managing super funds.

Key legislation: The primary law is the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), which sets out operational standards for super funds and imposes specific duties on trustees. It covers things like trustee covenants (e.g., to act in members’ best interests), investment restrictions (for example, an SMSF generally cannot lend money to members or acquire assets from members, with limited exceptions), when benefits can be paid, etc. The SIS Act works alongside tax laws in the Income Tax Assessment Acts, which establish the tax concessions and contribution caps described earlier. Another important law is the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, which mandates employer contributions. The Corporations Act 2001 also plays a role: it requires super fund trustees (except SMSFs) to hold an Australian Financial Services License and governs financial products and advice, including super – ensuring that funds provide disclosure documents to members (like Product Disclosure Statements and annual reports) and that those giving advice on super meet certain standards (training requirements, best interest duty, etc.). In summary, SIS Act + tax law + Corporations Act + some other pieces (like family law provisions for splitting super on divorce, and Insurance Act provisions for insurance offered through super) all interlock to shape how super is managed.

Regulators: Australia has a “twin peaks” regulatory system for financial services:

• The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) supervises super funds (other than SMSFs) from a prudential standpoint. Prudential regulation means APRA oversees the fund’s financial soundness, governance, and risk management – much like it does for banks and insurers. APRA licenses trustees of super funds (granting them Registrable Superannuation Entity licenses) and monitors funds via regular reporting. APRA can issue prudential standards that funds must follow (e.g., on investment governance, operational risk financial requirement, etc.). If a super fund is underperforming or not acting in members’ best interests, APRA has powers to intervene – recent laws allow APRA to direct trustees or even remove them in extreme cases. APRA also administers the performance test for MySuper and other products; funds that fail the test may be forced to inform members and potentially stop taking new members until they improve. Essentially, APRA’s role is to protect members’ benefits and maintain confidence in the system’s stability.
• The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regulates market conduct and consumer protection in superannuation. ASIC ensures that super fund disclosures are clear and not misleading, advertising is truthful, and members are treated fairly. It also oversees the provision of financial advice about super – requiring advisers to be licensed, appropriately trained, and to adhere to a best interest duty toward their clients. If there are instances of misconduct (for example, a trustee misusing members’ money, or an adviser giving deceptive advice to roll over super), ASIC is the regulator that takes enforcement action (through court action, license suspensions, etc.). ASIC also maintains the registry of SMSF auditors and can take action against auditors or advisers who don’t meet standards relating to SMSFs.
• The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has a dual role in super: it is the principal regulator for Self-Managed Super Funds, and it also administers certain cross-industry functions (like the SuperStream data system for contributions and rollovers, and managing lost super). For SMSFs, the ATO monitors compliance (through the required annual independent audit and SMSF Annual Return). If an SMSF breaches rules (say it lends money to a member), the auditor reports it to the ATO, and the ATO can impose penalties on the trustees or even declare the fund non-compliant (which can have severe tax consequences, basically taxing the fund’s assets at 45%). The ATO provides guidance and education to SMSF trustees to help them understand their obligations. Besides SMSFs, the ATO also ensures employers pay the Superannuation Guarantee (employers report to the ATO, and if they don’t pay, the ATO will chase them for the unpaid super plus penalties). It also handles contributions caps administration and excess contributions tax, and manages the consolidation of accounts (members can go on the myGov website linked to the ATO to find and consolidate their super accounts). So the ATO is heavily involved in the data and enforcement backbone of super.
• Additionally, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is an external dispute resolution body that members of APRA-regulated super funds can use if they have a complaint that they cannot resolve with their fund. For example, if a member disagrees with how a death benefit was distributed by the trustee, or if there were delays or errors in processing a rollover, they can take the case to AFCA. AFCA will investigate and make a determination which is binding on the fund (if the member accepts it). SMSF members generally can’t complain to AFCA about their own fund’s decisions (since they are the trustee), but they could potentially complain about, say, advice they received about their SMSF if it caused them loss (that would be a complaint against the adviser, not the SMSF itself).

These regulators coordinate as needed. APRA and ASIC have an MoU to share information on super funds (especially since APRA might see financial issues and ASIC might see conduct issues – they approach from different angles). The Council of Financial Regulators (which includes APRA, ASIC, the ATO, Treasury, and the RBA) allows high-level coordination on system-wide matters.

Trustee duties and governance: Super fund trustees (which, for APRA funds, are companies with boards of directors; for SMSFs, typically the members themselves) are subject to fiduciary duties under trust law and additional covenants under the SIS Act. They must act in the best financial interests of members at all times. They must exercise care, skill, and diligence as an “ordinary prudent person” managing someone else’s money would. The SIS Act also contains the famous sole purpose test, which requires that a super fund be maintained solely for providing retirement benefits to members (or their dependants in the case of the member’s death). This prevents trustees from using fund resources for other purposes (no providing financial assistance to members or relatives, no using fund assets for personal enjoyment, etc.). Trustees are required to formulate and regularly review an investment strategy for the fund, taking into account risk, return, diversification, liquidity, and the insurance needs of members. They have to consider whether the fund should hold insurance cover for its members (many large funds do as default; SMSF trustees often make a conscious decision about whether to hold life/disability insurance within the SMSF). They also must ensure the fund’s assets are kept separate from personal assets (particularly relevant in SMSFs where the same people might have personal and fund assets – breaches of separation can attract penalties).

A significant reform in recent years was strengthening the duty from “best interests” to “best financial interests” – essentially to eliminate ambiguity and make it clear that decisions should be evaluated on financial merit for members. The government also introduced reverse onus on certain expenditures: trustees may need to prove that an expenditure (like on advertising or sponsorships) was in members’ best financial interests, or else risk penalties.

For SMSFs, trustee duties are similarly onerous: they must follow the trust deed and super laws, ensure no early access or prohibited transactions occur, and keep records (minutes of decisions, investment strategy document, etc.). The ATO can penalize SMSF trustees via fines (administrative penalties) for even basic compliance breaches (like failing to keep records or sign financial statements).

Member protections and recent reforms: The regulatory framework has built-in protections for members, especially those who might be disengaged:

• MySuper: Introduced in 2013, MySuper products are simple, low-fee default investment options for APRA funds. If you don’t choose an investment option, your contributions go into your fund’s MySuper (usually a balanced or lifecycle strategy). MySuper products have restrictions on fees (no entry fees, banned certain commissions, etc.) and straightforward features, to ensure a “fair deal” for the average worker.
• Choice of Fund: Most employees can choose their super fund for SG contributions (since 2005). This prevents people from being stuck in a fund they don’t like. Additionally, since November 2021, “Stapling” means your super account follows you when you change jobs – your new employer will pay into your existing super account by default (unless you choose a different fund). This reform is aimed at reducing the number of duplicate accounts (which cause unnecessary fees and insurance premium erosion).
• Fee caps and inactive accounts: Small super accounts (below $6,000) get fee protection – administration and investment fees are capped at 3% p.a. to prevent erosion. Inactive low-balance accounts (under $6,000 and no contributions/rollovers for 16 months) are automatically transferred to the ATO, who will hold the money (earning interest at government bond rate) until the person consolidates it with an active account. This again preserves value by removing such accounts from the fee-charging environment. The ATO then helps match and reunite those monies with the person’s active super when possible.
• Insurance changes: To prevent young people or those with tiny balances from having their accounts eroded by insurance premiums, laws now require that super funds only provide automatic insurance on an “opt-in” basis for new members under 25 or with balances under $6,000. Also, if an account has been inactive (no contributions) for 16 months, any existing insurance must be turned off unless the member opts in to keep it. This ensures people are not unknowingly paying for cover they may not need or know about.
• Performance transparency: Under the 2021 “Your Future, Your Super” reforms, APRA now conducts annual performance tests on super funds’ investment options (starting with MySuper then extending to other options). Funds that underperform a specified benchmark by too much must inform their members of that fact (essentially a “fail” letter that strongly encourages members to consider switching), and if they fail two years in a row, they are barred from accepting new members. This regulatory pressure has led to increased transparency and some weaker funds exiting or merging. APRA also publishes a Heatmap of fees and returns, highlighting which funds are high-cost or underperforming, adding further public accountability.

All these measures – from default product rules to fee limits to oversight on performance – are designed to protect members, especially those who are not actively engaged with their super. They work in tandem with the fundamental trustee duties to act in members’ interests.

For advisers, the regulatory framework means they must also operate within certain boundaries: for example, if recommending a client move super funds, they need to consider best interests and demonstrate why the new fund is better (since there’s regulatory scrutiny on unnecessary switching, especially from a low-fee fund to a higher-fee fund). If advising on an SMSF, ASIC expects advisers to appropriately warn clients of the responsibilities and ensure it’s suitable (there’s regulatory guidance stating that for balances below $500k, an SMSF might not be in the client’s best interests unless there are other factors, etc.).

In summary, Australia’s superannuation system, while complex, has a strong consumer protection and governance framework. This gives confidence that people’s retirement savings are being looked after. Advisers must be well-versed in these rules to provide compliant advice and to reassure clients – for instance, explaining that their super in an APRA fund is regulated for prudence, or that consolidating accounts won’t lose them any benefits but will save on fees, etc. Ultimately, understanding the regulatory backdrop is part and parcel of being a competent adviser in the superannuation space.

Global Perspectives and Comparisons

Australia’s superannuation system is often viewed as one of the leading retirement savings systems in the world. In global pension rankings (such as the Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index), Australia consistently scores highly, often achieving a top-10 rank with a strong overall grading. The system’s strengths include its compulsory nature (ensuring broad coverage), well-regulated private management of funds, and significant assets that make the system sustainable and influential in capital markets. That said, each country structures retirement savings differently, and it’s insightful to compare Australia’s approach with others:

• Comparing regulatory structures: In Australia, we have APRA and ASIC overseeing super funds’ prudential soundness and market conduct, respectively. In the United Kingdom, there is a similar split between the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – which regulates the conduct of pension providers and advisers – and The Pensions Regulator (TPR), which oversees workplace pension schemes (making sure employers auto-enroll workers and that schemes are run properly). The UK implemented auto-enrolment in 2012, requiring employers to contribute to a pension for employees by default (employees can opt out, but few do), inspired in part by Australia’s compulsory model – though the UK’s contribution rates are lower so far. In the United States, there is no compulsory private pension system akin to super; instead, many employers offer voluntary plans like 401(k)s. U.S. pension regulation is fragmented: the Department of Labor (DOL) administers federal pension law (ERISA) that sets standards for plan fiduciaries and funding, the IRS sets tax rules and contribution limits, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversees the investment aspects and financial markets that these plans invest in. The result is lower coverage – not all U.S. workers have access to an employer plan, and participation is voluntary. Many European countries rely heavily on public pensions, but some (e.g., the Netherlands and Denmark) have very robust occupational pension arrangements through industry-wide schemes with mandatory contributions. Those countries often achieve higher retirement income replacement rates than Australia, but at the cost of higher overall contribution levels or taxes.
• Taxation differences: Australia uses a TTE model (contributions Taxed, fund earnings Taxed, end benefits largely Exempt after age 60). Many other countries use EET (Exempt contributions, Exempt earnings, Taxed on payout) – for example, the U.S. and UK traditionally do this for their 401(k)s and personal pensions (though both have some “Roth” or after-tax options too). The end result can be similar in theory, but Australia’s approach means the government collects some tax revenue earlier (during one’s working life) and then provides tax freedom in retirement. One advantage of our system is political palatability – once people are retired, the idea of taxing their super is generally unpopular, so having it tax-free after 60 has proven durable. In contrast, in some countries where pensions are taxed as income, there are ongoing debates about fairness and adjusting those taxes. From a retiree’s perspective, Australia is very attractive tax-wise: a retiree can earn investment income from super and draw a pension without any tax, whereas in, say, the U.S., withdrawals from a 401(k) are treated as taxable income (though typically at a lower bracket in retirement).
• Retirement income options (decumulation): A challenge worldwide is ensuring retirees don’t outlive their savings. Australia’s system has given a lot of freedom to individuals – there’s no requirement to annuitize or otherwise lock in an income stream (beyond minimum drawdown rules). In the past, countries like the UK had rules compelling many retirees to buy an annuity by a certain age, but the UK removed that requirement in 2015’s “pension freedom” reforms, giving people more choice (similar to Australia’s approach, but after decades of a more restrictive regime). However, with freedom comes responsibility: Australian retirees largely stick to account-based pensions and bear investment and longevity risk themselves. Other countries have more collective or mandatory risk-pooling – for example, the Netherlands has large defined benefit plans that pay lifetime incomes, and some countries are experimenting with collective defined contribution plans that share risk among members. In Australia, there is growing recognition (under the Retirement Income Covenant) that products providing longevity protection (like annuities or deferred annuities) might need to play a bigger role alongside account-based pensions. Countries such as Canada and Singapore have elements of compulsory or default annuitization (Singapore’s CPF converts part of the savings into a life annuity at a certain age). Australia will likely remain primarily flexible/voluntary, but with nudges towards considering lifetime income solutions.
• System performance and sustainability: Globally, Australia ranks high on sustainability metrics because of our large pool of assets relative to the size of the economy and the funded nature of our system. We have over 30 years of compulsory contributions accumulated, which the Mercer Global Pension Index and other studies view positively. Countries with aging populations and generous unfunded public pensions (like many in Europe) face sustainability issues; Australia ameliorates that through super. On adequacy, some peer systems do better at replacing working-life income – for instance, the average Dutch or Danish worker might get a higher percentage of their salary in retirement income (from combined public and occupational systems) than the average Australian relying on super plus Age Pension. This indicates one area Australia continues to work on: gradually increasing the SG to 12% and possibly beyond to improve benefit adequacy, and focusing on groups who have lower super balances (like women, who often take career breaks and earn less on average – leading to initiatives such as paying super on parental leave and encouraging spouse contributions or catch-up contributions).

For advisers, understanding these global perspectives is more than just interesting trivia – it helps to explain to clients how fortunate we are to have compulsory super (many countries are now trying to implement something similar because Australia’s model is seen as successful). It also highlights potential future directions: for example, the concept of value for money in pension management is getting attention worldwide, so advisers should expect continued pressure on high-fee funds or unnecessary fees. The trend towards outcome-focused retirement planning (ensuring the savings translate into reliable retirement income) is common internationally, and Australia is following suit by encouraging funds to offer guided retirement income solutions, not just lump sum payouts.

In essence, while each country’s pension system has unique features, the core challenges – getting people to save enough, investing those savings well, and turning them into lasting income – are universal. Australia’s super system is often rated among the best in global comparisons, particularly for its integrity and sustainability, but there are lessons we share with and learn from other nations. As an adviser, referencing global best practices or standards can sometimes help justify recommendations (for instance, explaining the benefit of having some lifetime annuity income by noting how other countries require it, or reinforcing the importance of diversification and low costs, which are universally recommended principles).

Conclusion

Superannuation in Australia is a complex but powerful framework for building retirement wealth. For financial advisers, mastery of superannuation rules and strategies is essential, as super often represents a client’s largest or second-largest asset. In this module, we covered the journey of superannuation: from contributions (and how to maximize them within caps), to the preservation rules that lock away those savings until retirement, through to the tax concessions that boost growth and make retirement withdrawals tax-free for over-60s. We examined how clients can convert their super into retirement income streams and the choices they face at that critical juncture. We also looked at the different structures available for holding super – from large public funds to do-it-yourself SMSFs – and the regulatory environment that keeps the system secure and fair.

Importantly, strategic superannuation advice must always align with the client’s overall goals and situation. While maximizing super is highly beneficial for retirement, advisers will consider the client’s need for liquidity and short-term objectives too (for example, you wouldn’t lock all surplus funds into super if the client might need money for a home purchase or other major goal before retirement). This holistic approach – integrating super advice with overall financial planning – distinguishes truly effective retirement strategies.

In conclusion, superannuation is the bedrock of most Australians’ retirement plans. A strong grasp of its systems and structures enables advisers to build robust retirement strategies for their clients. By leveraging super’s tax advantages, navigating its rules adeptly, and staying abreast of regulatory developments, advisers can help clients grow and protect their wealth so that they can enjoy a financially secure and fulfilling retirement. This not only meets the professional standards expected of advisers, but ultimately fulfills the fundamental purpose of financial planning – to improve clients’ financial well-being now and into the future.

References

1. Australian Taxation Office. Understanding concessional and non-concessional contributions (2023). (Explains before-tax vs after-tax contributions and caps).
2. Australian Taxation Office. Conditions of release (2023). (Preservation age table and common conditions for accessing super).
3. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Quarterly Superannuation Performance – Dec 2024 Highlights (2025). (Total super assets reached $4.2 trillion).
4. ASIC Moneysmart. Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) – Risks and responsibilities. (Highlights that SMSF members have no government compensation if fraud occurs, and must not access benefits early).
5. Featherby Financial Planning. Industry Fund, Retail Fund or SMSF – which is best? (2023). (Discusses comparative advantages of industry vs retail vs SMSF, e.g., lower fees in industry funds, greater investment choice in retail).
6. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (Investor.gov). Pension Plans (ERISA). (Notes that U.S. private pensions are governed by ERISA, administered by the Department of Labor).
7. APRA. Superannuation in Australia: a timeline (2019). (Mentions World Bank’s endorsement of Australia’s three-pillar retirement system as best practice).
8. Mercer CFA Institute. Global Pension Index 2023 – Results. (Shows Australia’s system ranking highly internationally with strong scores for sustainability and integrity).
9. Australian Taxation Office. Your obligations as an SMSF trustee (2025). (Outlines trustee duties: act honestly, in members’ best financial interests, and meet the sole purpose test).
10. ASIC Moneysmart. SMSFs take time and money (2021). (Research indicating SMSF trustees spend over 8 hours a month on administration, highlighting the time and cost involved).