The biggest takeaway from the report was that SMSFs generally become comparable to retail and industry funds at a balance of $200,000 and became a cheaper option when balances reach $500,000.

However, SMSF service provider SuperConcepts, who sponsored the report, stated that, on closer examination, SMSFs may be even more affordable than other APRA options because they largely avoid significant investment management charges.

SuperConcepts noted that the report didn’t include investment management charges and there were some questions for why it did not make allowances for these changes.

In a recent panel discussion for SMSF Week, SuperConcepts executive manager, SMSF technical and strategic solutions, Philip La Greca stated that this only strengthened the case that SMSFs were cheaper where they have a balance beyond $200,000 because investment management charges are seldom an issue.

“The first thing that you’ve got to remember is pretty much every APRA-regulated fund actually has a cost to just hold assets, they all have a custodian, to begin with,” Mr La Greca said.

“Automatically just holding an asset, irrespective of buying or selling, there is an ongoing cost. That is something that most SMSFs don’t bear.”

This means that retail and industry fund fees, in many cases, may be even higher than the figures in the report, depending on the acquisition, disposal and holding costs related to the asset classes funds are invested in and the structures used to hold these assets.

“Very few SMSFs use structured products like managed funds; we know it is only about 20 per cent of the money that is in the SMSF space [that] is in these sorts of products,” Mr La Greca said.