There were 2 "size" related comments in Cooper's Phase Three - Preliminary Report.
The first was about membership size. Currently capped at 4 - or more correctly, fewer than 5 - most submissions called for an increase in this otherwise supposedly arbitrary limit. I say "supposedly", because it seems to me that the cap of 4 is not arbitrary, but instead reflects the trust law in each state which generally caps the number of individual trustees at a maximum of 4. The panel's recommendation is for no change here, because of the "complications inherent in expanding the limit" - which appears to be an allusion to the state trust law requirements, as well as possibly the cumbersome nature of running a fund with a large board of trustees/directors.
The other size issue concerned fund asset size. Sensibly, the board does not believe there should be a mandated minimum fund size. Introducing an arbitrary limit would not have worked. There are examples of where funds with otherwise low assets are justifiable - most notably insurance only arrangements. And to set a minimum could have sent the wrong message - i.e. if you have (say) $200,000 in superannuation, then you ought to have an SMSF.
It comes down to whether the particular circumstances warrant having an SMSF. Size is only one of many factors to be considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment