morning Lindso47," The difference comes down to the difference...

morning Lindso47,


" The difference comes down to the difference in costs, generally depending on amount in fund, admin flexibility and assistance provided etc."

I think there is more to it than costs but it can be only a matter of opinion. Personally I believe most funds other than smsf are more or less run so as they don't look worse than their competition - rather than making investments to build wealth - as long as they don't look bad they are happy. (good read on this Peter Lynch - 'One up on Wall Street).

Regardless of why the accounts are larger - 18 times the balance for smsf'ers says that smsf'ers are probably sharper tacks in the box than the average punter.

From what I can see industry funds (and the tax dept.) basically hate smsf's --------

they hate them because they have higher balances and better returns - which show them up. The tax dept. hates them because they miss out on the tax - all imo, but with the level of anger/angst I see out there I am pretty sure I am right.


"Larger account balances. As at 30 June 2008, the average SMSF member balance was $456,000, which is more than 18 times the average account balance of less than $25,000 for all superannuation funds with more than four members."

http://www.superguide.com.au/diy-superannuation/shining-a-government-spotlight-on-smsfs-a-summary


have a good day

Pinto