Platforms, SMSFs grow while industry funds in outflow
More Self-Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSFs) are being established in the absence of financial advice while industry superannuation funds are witnessing outflows to platform-based offerings.
That is the bottom line of data and analysis provided to the market yesterday, with Class Super research presented to SMSF Association National Conference in Adelaide revealing that first quarter 2026 SMSF establishments are the highest on record, with nearly 14,500 new funds – a 33.4% increase over the same quarter last year.
At the same time, platform company, Netwealth used an investor briefing attaching to its first half results to point to funds under administration and advice shifting from industry superannuation funds to platforms.
“As member balances increase, they are seeking tailored advice covering more than just super,” the Netwealth analysis said. “Adviser-led flows are leading to net inflow for certain platforms.”
It suggested this was being driven by an ageing demographic which has complex financial needs which support specialised retirement, tax and estate planning advice.
The Class Super data, outlined by the company’s chief executive, Tim Steele, pointed to four out of five newly established SMSFs (80%) being set up without receiving financial advice.
“This higher than across the total Class SMSF population, where the proportion accessing financial advice increased to 26.8% in FY24, up from 26%,” it said.
“Industry-wide, the number of unadvised SMSFs rose to around 483,000 in 2024, while adviser numbers fell from 15,622 in 2023 to 15,477,” the Class analysis said.
“Meanwhile, the demand for advice remains strong, with 34% of unadvised trustees planning to seek advice (up from 25% last year). This creates a clear opportunity for advisers to support the changing needs of SMSF trustees throughout their life stages given the average SMSF on Class has been established for 15.6 years.”
The Class analysis also pointed out that newly-established SMSFs tended to “lean more heavily into direct property and are earlier adopters of exchange traded funds (ETFs).
Newly established SMSFs show a modestly higher allocation to direct property, at 23.3% of assets compared with 21.1% for existing funds, suggesting an early preference for tangible, long-term assets.3
Unlike existing SMSFs on Class, ETFs feature in the top five asset allocations for newly established SMSFs, with 18.2% holding ETFs despite allocations averaging just 7.7% of assets. This trend reflects the growing demand for ETFs, driven by their lower costs, diversification and transparency.
The Class data prompted Heffron Consulting managing director, Meg Heffron to note that younger Australians are now reaching the affordability thresholds for SMSFs much earlier.
However, she suggested that SMSFs were becoming affordable before the younger clients could afford advice.
She added that even those who do explore advice find that advisers are increasingly reluctant to recommend SMSFs
Advisers are less willing to recommend SMSFs. While that sometimes makes perfect sense – because retail super platforms are continuously becoming more competitive, there’s also a significant reluctance because it has been made too onerous for them by regulatory and licensee pressure.
“These settings encourage advisers to present SMSFs as a last choice approach.”
Or is it that ISFs have no differentiating member services ?
Have $1 or $10 Mill in ISFs and the actual services, if required are at the same poor level.
What other business anywhere in the world treats AAA client / members the same as DDD members ?
Not Einstein material to see why AAA, AA, A & BBB ISF members go elsewhere
4 out of 5 SMSF set up without advice. Does ASIC ever wonder how they are being set up? I guarantee if the trustees are surveyed most would have no idea of their obligations, so they are getting their “advice” from somewhere ASIC! The FP industry are still waiting on them to look into unlicensed advice from accountants, property spruikers and online providers.
ASIC & ATO have made advisers too afraid to recommend SMSF’s, and the advice process is too costly. Another recent article showed huge uptake in SMSF’s by Gen X & Millennials – there’s clearly a market and a demand, beyond what the regulators say is suitable, but advisers have too many threats and obstacles in advising these groups on SMSF.
Yep unlicensed property spruikers are providing loads of AFSL SMSF advice via lead generation and ASIC do nothing, besides publish a watch list. WTF
Accountants have forever provided bucket loads of illegal AFSL advice especially for SMSF set up and investments and ASIC do nothing.