Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

3 April 2025

Home / Caveat Emptor

Why only four members in an SMSF?

Question from Stuart Wilson

I would like to know why SMSF's are limited to less than 5 members. My family has in excess of 4 people in it and when including siblings spouses and children, many, many more than 4.

We currently have 4 separate SMSF's which quadruples the costs and time involved in managing the funds. As a very hands on SMSF trustee, we manage all of the investments and try to complete as much of the accountancy work as we can before handing the accounts to the accountant but the costs are still 4 times what they would be if we could run a single SMSF with more members.

Many articles and companies highlight the minimum investment required in a SMSF to make it viable when considering costs, surely and increase in the number of members allowed would enable more people to benefit from establishing a SMSF.

The restriction on membership seems to be an added cost to those people wanting to establish a SMSF.

Thanks, Stuart Wilson

Reply from Ramani Venkatramani, who is an actuary and between 1996 and 2011, he was a senior executive at ISC /APRA, supervising pension funds.

SMSF's predecessor, 'the excluded fund' was regulated by Insurance and Superannuation Commission with all other complying funds, with the idea that those who wish to control their own retirement savings should be able to do so, with basic requirements being met. It was considered that in order for the control to be properly exercised, the number of members should not exceed 4, as the option of going into the bigger sectors (corporate, industry or retail) was open.

Wallis Committee in 1997 recommended its continuation with the regulation shifting to ATO and a prohibition on trustee remuneration. The limit of 4 was retained.

 

While the number 4 itself is arbitrary, the idea is to keep it small and manageable. The possibilities of lifting the number, or changing the definition (to say, all members of a family regardless of number) were suggested during the Cooper review but were not accepted.

 

As there is no limit on how many SMSFs can be set up by someone, for more than 4, two or more SMSFs can be used under the current limit.

(We have also approached ASIC for a response).

3 Comments
Philip La Greca
December 19, 2013

The other rationale for the limit relates to how the decision-making process works in the multi-member funds and the number of members that could be overridden.

The SIS law does not specify so the general principle is a majority of trustees/directors rules. Thus with a two member fund both must agree, for a three member fund then two out of three and for a four member fund three out of four. In these cases then only ever one person's wishes are not met. If we take this to five members however then we end up with three out of five so more members are not satisfied with the outcome.

This would require a statutory basis for decision-making and anything else than a unanimous decision would always result in some low cap of member numbers. Even 75% for a 10-member fund would mean two outvoted members.

If you consider how difficult it is to get 5 people to agree on how to split a lunch bill consider the outcomes when you are talking about peoples retirement savings.

Andrew Bloore
December 04, 2013

This has been an issue which has been discussed over and over and the answer has been the same every time, no change to the numbers. In fact the outcome of this restriction has not been a growth in the number of member it has actually seen the number of members on average decline from 15 years ago when it was approximately 2.2 member on average per fund to where it is today at 1.9. That said families need solutions. There are two different issues here, the first being the tax and structural issues of the fund and who can be a member of it (to a maximum of 4, or more technically correct, fewer than 5) and secondly how to simply manage the assets of the funds efficiently.

Having 2 funds does not necessarily mean you need to duplicate the investment process into two funds. For example you can set up a bare trust to hold all of the assets of many funds and invest them from 1 single pool to make the investment management of the assets simple. Say you have 10 members in the family, you obviously need at least 3 fund structures but you can invest via 1 holding or bare trust and simply account for the position in each tax entity in their correct proportion. This really is a simple administration function. Yes you still need 3 tax returns (one for each fund) but it dramatically reduces the administration time from an accounting point of view and simplifies the Trustees lives. Furthermore the SIS Act specifically allows the trustees to appoint an investment manager - say a patriarch, who can be responsible for managing the group assets.

Everyone seems to focus on the issue of the 4 members rather than saying well if we can only have four members how do I make my life as easy as possible within the legislation. What ends up happening is each fund ends up with different assets and one person trying to work of what goes where. There are simple solutions to all this. As always go to a superannuation professional administrator and ask how to make the fund work for you, not the other way around.

Christopher Dodson
January 11, 2017

Hi Andrew,

I am interested in your comment as I do not believe it is possible for related SMSF's to invest in a bare trust or unit trust which holds anything other than property and cash.

Are you able to provide references on how this can be completed?

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Lending policies can spoil good SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Winding up market linked pensions with care

Does a declaration of trust satisfy SMSF separation of asset regulations?

Firstlinks is sponsored by:
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

The 2025 Australian Federal election – implications for investors

With an election due by 17 May, we are effectively in campaign mode with the Government announcing numerous spending promises since January and the Coalition often matching them. Here's what the election means for investors.

Latest Updates

World's largest asset manager wants to revolutionise your portfolio

Larry Fink is one of the smartest people in the finance industry. In his latest shareholder letter, the Blackrock CEO outlines his quest to become the biggest player in private assets and upend investor portfolios.

Economy

Australia's economic report card heading into the polls

Our economy grew by a nominal rate of 7% per annum from 2017 to 2024, but it benefited from the largesse of fiscal and monetary policies, both of which are now fading. We need a new, credible economic growth agenda.

Preference votes matter

If the recent polls are anything to go by, we are headed for a hung parliament at the upcoming federal election. So more than ever, Australians need to give serious consideration to their preference votes.

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Tips for the last member standing

It’s common for people as they age to seek more help in running their SMSF if their capacity declines. An alternate director may be a great solution for someone just planning for short-term help in the meantime.

Wilson Asset Management on markets and its new income fund

In this interview, Matthew Haupt from Wilson Asset Management discusses his outloook for the ASX, sectors such as REITs that he likes, and his firm's launch of a new income-oriented listed investment company.  

Planning

‘Life expectancy’ – and why I don’t like the expression

Life expectancy isn't just a number - it's a concept that changes with survival rates over time. This article breaks down how age, survival, and societal factors shape our understanding of life expectancy, especially post-Covid. 

The shine is back on gold, and gold miners

Gold mining stocks outperformed in 2024 and are expected to do well in 2025. At this point in the rally, it's worth considering what has driven gold prices higher and why miners could still have some catching up to do.

Sponsors

Alliances

Site Map

About Firstlinks

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.