I'm sure I'll get a few raised eyebrows (as usual here), but...

I'm sure I'll get a few raised eyebrows (as usual here), but here I go.

Dayz, I expect the problems you are solving largely occur because of 1) the minimal guidelines by the ATO, but that said any further information would probably be ignored by many, but not all, Trustees; 2) many Trustees rely on their Accountants or Fund Administrators / Advisers to guide them,, either before they make mistakes or to fix them, which often happens because of the year-to-year reporting and ability to rework company / private financials to fit in with post- 30 June transactions.

I agree that there should be some initial and ongoing eduction or revision / testing, but I also think this with driving (having been hit from behind today by a driver ignoring a simple rule i.e. don't move forward unless you are looking and sure the car in front has #@*&+ moved on!!!). Why? If only to remind Trustees they have a responsibility to have an understanding, The current ATO 'seminars' I have been to are pretty basic.

Sandminer, sorry but I don't think anyone was trying to insult you, nor should you assume that it was a personal attack on ourself personally. Yes, you do have a fabulous CV and congratulations on having such a life, but all your experience and knowledge is great in the work / business environment, but that doesn't automatically mean you won't stuff up as a Trustee. I think what you said is grossly insulting to someone who has laid bricks all their life and could perhaps be an acceptable Trustee. But you did say Engineer, enough said.

Pintohoo, you say SMSF's are outperforming the superannuation industry by a country mile. Where is the substance to that? As I've said here before, a SMSF with a buy and hold index ETF isn't going to perform much differently to a Retail/Wholesale fund with the same ETF in it. Likewise with TD's or cash. The difference comes down to the difference in costs, generally depending on amount in fund, admin flexibility and assistance provided etc. Basically a SMSF can be very expensive or very cheap, sometimes the expense is the mistakes the Trustees make when they think they can be an overnight expert or just hold in cash.
People have investment choices with almost any super fund - SMSF or otherwise and it's up to them to exercise that choice.

Just because you have an SMSF doesn't mean you will automatically get a better return than the XYZ Super fund that you rolled out of and had left sitting in the default / balanced option for 20 years and then blamed 'the idiots running the thing' for the poor returns.
"I'm sure I can do better and If I stuff up then I've only got myself to blame" seems to be the biggest reason I hear for people to start a SMSF. Not 'Heck, I had better start taking an interest in my super instead of ignoring the statements when they come in and just follow whatever the newspapers say that 'super' has returned the past year...No wonder dayz is keeping busy. I reckon if the ATO changed the audit process and looked at funds differently then it would really hit the fan.

Bugger!! It's late and I just remembered I'd promised myself I wouldn't rant again on this forum. Night all.