“In reality, it is a document that has no meaning and doesn’t help trustees move towards the retirement objectives that they set up the fund to help meet, so we really need to step up the quality of the document and what its meaning is,” he said.

“I have been quite vocal in trying to ensure we’ve got appropriate guidance, because if the ATO is addressing these issues of heavy asset concentration, they need to come back and provide guidance into the community as to what their expectations are.”

Mr Dunn said the lack of a comprehensive framework for SMSF professionals to rely on meant there were few parameters for auditors to judge an SMSF investment strategy on when assessing whether it was compliant with super law.

“With related-party LRBA arrangements, the ATO provided a framework as to what they saw were safe harbour [rules], and therefore they could do something like this that helps extrapolate that out a bit further to guide trustees as to what those expectations are,” he said.

“That diversification requirement needs to have more meat on the bone, and understanding what the ATO would be expecting is a critical part.”

Mr Dunn said apart from more regulatory guidance, the industry also needed to improve communication between different SMSF service providers to ensure the best outcomes for trustees when it came to investment strategy.

“We need to be identifying the skill sets of different parties involved in the process to be able to assist and potentially refer on to those that can provide the appropriate guidance in respect to those issues as well,” he said.

“It is a real mixed bag in terms of who should be doing what and how, so I think it’s important that the accountant and the adviser have a strong understanding of the requirements and are able to identify where the trustee’s role and the accountant’s role may start and stop and where the adviser could step into that position.”