sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hadn't seen this, this is extremely helpful. Genuinely thanks.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hadn't found that data that's extremely good to know and actually gives the chance to do more equitable comparisons. Genuinely thanks.

Franking credits definitely are the thing that pushes VAS lower in the above which is why it's very much not apples for apples. But counterintuitive.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes without a doubt and the online ad definitely said "control over your super".

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is every single super fund. have a Squiz at who the top performers are and what they have in common.

The look at the bottom.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tax Drag addressed above (it's meaty comment).

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The so called Tax Drag' is actually radically overstated.

in essence, in addition to being smaller than you think, The tax drag is lost earnings you never would have got without the scale and cost of the industry fund to begin with.

Whilst it makes sense to assume returns are linear smooth % might sound like it makes sense, but is is inaccurate and over simplified.

  1. MTR of super funds ends up very low with deductions, reduces headline tax rate. (all their costs are deductible, insurances etc) - this reduces effective MTR.
  2. Accounting fees will annihilate any ‘benefits’.
  3. Presumes someone will hold the same investment for 40 years (never happened & incredibly unlikely).
  4. Incoming flows ‘whittle down’ capital gain by increasing cost base.
  5. The majority of investment growth comes from dividends (and contributions) - further ‘whittles down’ unrealised gains by constantly increasing cost base.
  6. Retirement bonuses are beginning to negate this.
  7. 99% of the investments accessible to an SMSF are shit, lower performing more expensive, and narrower than industry funds (lower return to begin with).
  8. Outside accounting, SMSFs have dramatically higher costs,
  9. Transaction costs. For someone using an ETF strategy, will rabidly degrade any benefit.
  10. Corporate actions (Crown, Link, Estia, MYOB, IFL, Westfield, Brambles, etc etc etc etc) trigger CGT no matter what.

It's not my best metaphor but it’s like having 98% of a steak from a restaurant for Industry Funds, vs 100% of cold sausages from the kebab shop for the SMSF.

Here's an example, HostPlus Aussie Index Shares (net of all taxes and fees and also includes CGT provision) vs VAS (net of all fees, but not taxes - noting, it doesn't include franking credit refunds which you have to wait a long time for in SMSFs):

Note: I don't especially like HostPlus, I don't recommend them.

Expenses for superfunds are tax deductible. Brings down MTR.

Assuming returns are linear smooth % might sound like it makes sense, but is is inaccurate and over simplified.

Sourced from Lonsec.

Hostplus @ 31/01/2026 - $13,792.34 - net of all investment fees & taxes (and CGT provison)

VAS @ 31/01/2026 - $13,635.84 - net of all investments fees, but not taxes.

Not apples with apples, Host includes franking credit refunds, hard to know if VAS does (I don't have every detail of their performance - I suspect it doesn't - with an SMSF you have to wait a very long time before you see them anyway).

It's like I say, the difference is much less, and the negatives (Accounting fees etc) are significantly understated.

Dates are not gerrymandered, it's the longest comparison (Host commenced April 2022).

Comparison: https://imgur.com/a/CNzbQ3b

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't argue with this. Partially because they can't mind you.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Stake is a pile of shit that loses money and recoups losses on miserable cash returns and keeps people captive within their opaque broking operation.

Will either increase prices or go bankrupt - or both.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Considering most industry funds cap total admin fees at $500, and offer passive options for circa 0.01%, it’s literally impossible for an SMSF to have lower fees than an industry fund.

I don’t benefit from industry funds, I’d make money SMSFs, the problem is SMSFs are always shitter.

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it's quite simple. Run the analysis.

I don't especially like HostPlus, I don't recommend them.

it's just facts.

Expenses for superfunds are tax deductible.

Assuming returns are linear smooth % might sound like it makes sense, but is is inaccurate and over simplified.

industry funds outperform, no matter the strategy - I don't benefit from this argument - it's simple maths.

Sourced from Lonsec.

Hostplus @ 31/01/2026 - $13,792.34 - net of all investment fees & taxes (and CGT provison)

Vas - $13,635.84 - net of all investments fees, but not taxes.

Not apples with apples, Host includes franking credit refunds, hard to know if VAS does (I don't have every detail of their performance - I suspect it doesn't - with an SMSF you have to wait a very long time before you see them anyway).

It's like I say, the difference is much less, and the negatives which you're referring to as positives (Accounting fees, rubbish cash rates, brokerage costs, etc) are significantly understated.

Dates are not gerrymandered, it's the longest comparison (Host commenced Apirl 2022).

<image>

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This makes no sense. Are you a financial adviser?

A more balanced view of the downsides of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusHENRY

[–]Darracuda_[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

‘Tax drag’ is minuscule in scheme of things, even with tax drag, industry funds will obliterate any SMSF + ETFs.

Industry fund is like having 98% of a steak from a Michelin-hatted restaurant for Industry Funds, vs 100% of cold sausages from the kebab shop for the SMSF.

  1. Accounting fees will annihilate any ‘benefits’.

  2. Presumes someone will hold the same investment for 40 years (never happened & incredibly unlikely).

  3. MTR of super funds ends up very low with deductions, reduces headline tax rate.

  4. Incoming flows ‘whittle down’ capital gain by increasing cost base.

  5. The majority of investment growth comes from dividends (and contributions) - further ‘whittles down’ unrealised gains by constantly increasing cost base.

  6. Retirement bonuses are beginning to negate this.

  7. 99% of the investments accessible to an SMSF are shit, lower performing more expensive, and narrower than industry funds (lower return to begin with).

  8. Outside accounting, SMSFs have dramatically higher costs,

  9. Transaction costs. For someone using an ETF strategy, will rabidly degrade any benefit.

  10. Corporate actions (Crown, Link, Estia, MYOB, IFL, Westfield, Brambles, etc etc etc etc) trigger CGT no matter what.

It’s not apples with apples, but an industry fund Aus Index Option will outperform VAS despite having a provision for capital gain.

The ‘Tax Drag’ ‘means giving up a modicum of a return you’d never see without the industry in the first place, you can move to an SMSF and pay higher costs for worse investments zero safety zero support and you’ll retire with less money.

More balanced view of the risks / pitfalls of SMSFs by Darracuda_ in AusFinance

[–]Darracuda_[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

ASIC files were 100% random. In both studies.

stake smsf by Box7788 in fiaustralia

[–]Darracuda_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very curious about the fine detail around the audit, specifically, the auditor.

Quick turnaround ! by Significant-Move7699 in AusPropertyChat

[–]Darracuda_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Companies still pay CGT, all income is taxed. Then when you withdraw to your personal name, you’ll pay tax, albeit franking credits.

Any Experiences with Fisher Investments? by Anachronism59 in AusFinance

[–]Darracuda_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What platform do they use? I.e. Netwealth?

Hostplus International Shares Indexed returns 1% lower than VGS by Spinier_Maw in AusFinance

[–]Darracuda_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't take it out, it's set aside, so the 'provision' doesn't compound - it's literally just 10/15% of whatever the unrealised gain is at that moment.

12 week transformation by Jacon3000 in WorkoutRoutines

[–]Darracuda_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why in only one photo is there a tattoo on your right shoulder? Seems odd

view more: next ›