Self-Managed Super Funds

Maximise control over your retirement savings with self-managed super funds (SMSFs), empowering you to make strategic investment decisions tailored to your financial goals.

A man standing in front of a painting on a easel.

An SMSF is a personal or family superannuation fund that is managed by the members of the fund, who are also the trustees. They can tailor their own investment strategies and select specific assets such as listed securities, managed investments, cash and term deposits, international equities, instalment warrants and so on. Generally, an SMSF has a personal or family super fund with no more than 6 members; each member of the fund is a trustee; no member of the fund is an employee of another member of the fund, unless those members are related; no trustee of the fund receives remuneration for his or her services as a trustee and the SMSF must have a written Trust Deed and Investment Strategy that meets all members' objectives.

Morgans offers a variety of services for SMSFs, including structure, setup, advice, rollovers, investments, administration and compliance. We have investment advisers who specialise in superannuation and a technical research team that provides updates and support on the latest in superannuation developments.

How does it work?

Our solutions

Our Wealth+ SMSF solution is an all-encompassing portfolio administration and SMSF administration service that allows you to take advantage of the flexibility and control of an SMSF, but outsource the work involved in establishing and running your fund.

Clients and their accountants can benefit from our Wealth+ Managed Portfolio Service, which is a reporting facility that we offer for portfolio administration. This service makes investing easier by collecting and recording all investment information/documentation, however SMSF trustees will need to arrange annual administration of the SMSF using an accountant or administrator.

Our SMSF administration only service provides fund administration without the portfolio administration. Please contact us or your Morgans adviser to find out more.

SMSF advantages

There is no doubt there are advantages to SMSFs, including greater investment choice – direct and indirect investing; greater control over investment strategies; access to investment gearing opportunities not available in retail super funds; cost effectiveness over the long term; offers preferable tax arrangements and allows you to look after your family.

Getting started

Morgans recognises that effective wealth management is crucial for asset growth and financial freedom. Our experienced advisers will navigate you through the wealth management process, assisting in setting short and long-term goals and implementing strategies.

It costs money to set up and run an SMSF. You might find that the fees you pay for an SMSF are more than you would pay in another type of super fund. In many cases, setting up an SMSF with a starting balance of $200,000 or below is unlikely to be the best superannuation option for you.

Setting up

When opting for an SMSF, the establishment process can be straightforward with guidance from specialised professionals like financial advisers and accountants. Key procedures include obtaining a Trust Deed, appointing trustees, opting for ATO regulation, member identification, securing necessary tax registrations, devising an investment strategy, opening a bank account, arranging wealth protection, and transferring existing super accounts. Streamline your SMSF setup with expert assistance from our Morgans’ advisers.

Morgans can handle the admin for you.

Successful investment management requires constant attention and adaptability. With a focus on flexibility and control, our comprehensive administration and investment reporting service streamlines the establishment and operation of your SMSF. Simplify investment administration with our reporting facility, making it easier for clients and accountants. Opt for our SMSF administration-only service for fund administration without portfolio management.

News & Insights

Michael Knox, Chief Economist, reveals how the OECD and RBA’s outdated assumptions about global trade fail to account for China’s Marxist-Leninist economic strategies.

This morning, I was asked to discuss Sarah Hunter’s presentation from yesterday. Sarah, the Assistant Governor and Chief Economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), delivered a detailed and competent discussion on the conventional view of tariffs’ impact on the international economy. She highlighted that tariffs typically increase inflation and reduce economic output, a perspective echoed by the OECD in a similar presentation overnight. Sarah’s analysis focused on the potential shocks tariffs could cause, particularly their effects on GDP and inflation.

Drawing on my experience as an Australian trade commissioner and my work in Australian embassies, I found her presentation particularly interesting. My background allowed me to bring specialist knowledge to the conversation, which I believe gave me an edge. Notably, I observed that the RBA seems to lack analysts closely tracking individual policymakers in the Trump administration, such as Scott Bessent, whose views on tariffs and competition differ from the general assumptions. The conventional view assumes a world of perfectly competitive countries adhering to international trade rules and unlikely to engage in conflict—a scenario that doesn’t align with the current global trade environment, especially between China and the United States.

China, operating as a Marxist-Leninist economy, aims to dominate global markets by building monopolies in areas like rare earths, nickel, copper, and other base metals. It maintains a managed exchange rate, despite promises to the International Monetary Fund for a freely floating currency. If China allowed its currency, the RMB, to float, it would likely appreciate significantly, increasing imports and reducing its trade surplus. This would create a more balanced international trade environment, potentially reducing the need for other countries to impose tariffs. However, major institutions like the OECD and RBA seem to misjudge the nature of this trade shock, relying on outdated assumptions about global trade dynamics.

The international community also appears to overlook specific U.S. policy intentions, such as those articulated by figures like Peter Navarro and Scott Bessent. The U.S. aims to use tariffs selectively to bolster industries like pharmaceuticals, precision manufacturing, and motor vehicles. This misunderstanding leads public institutions to perceive unspecified risks, as reflected in Sarah’s otherwise able presentation. Because the RBA and similar institutions view the world as fraught with undefined risks, they are inclined to keep interest rates low, responding to perceived threats rather than an equilibrium model.

Interestingly, data from the U.S. economy contradicts the expected negative impacts of tariffs. The Chicago Fed National Activity Indicator, a reliable gauge of economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis, shows U.S. growth above the long-term trend for the first four months of this year. This suggests resilience despite tariff-related shocks. Ideally, growth will slow later this year, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut rates, facilitating a soft landing and a decline in the U.S. dollar to boost global commodity prices. However, this nuanced outlook wasn’t evident in yesterday’s presentation.

Moreover, the anticipated rise in U.S. inflation due to tariffs isn’t materialising. Scott Bessent recently noted that U.S. CPI inflation is lower than expected, with core inflation shown as the (16% trimmed mean) at 3% for the past two months . Core inflation  excluding  food and energy CPI  is only at 2.8%. This suggests that Chinese suppliers are absorbing tariff costs to maintain market share, rather than passing them on as higher prices. Recent Chinese data supports this, showing a slight decline in manufacturing confidence and coal consumption, indicating reduced factory output and electricity use. This points to a modest slowdown in China’s economy. So far the expected negative effects on U.S. prices and output are not occurring.

In summary, the fears expressed by institutions like the RBA and OECD about the Trump administration’s trade policies appear overstated. The U.S. economy is not experiencing the predicted declines in output or increases in inflation. While these effects may emerge later, the current data suggests that the risks are not as severe as anticipated, highlighting a disconnect between theoretical models and real-world outcomes.

Read more
Michael Knox outlines the economic outlook for growth and inflation in the U.S., the Euro area, China, India, and Australia, drawing data from the International Monetary Fund, the Congressional Budget Office, European sources, and his own analysis for Australia.

Today, I’m presenting the first page of my updated presentation, which focuses on GDP growth and inflation expectations for major economies. Before diving into that, I want to clarify a point about U.S. trade negotiations that has confused some media outlets.

In the previous Trump Administration ,there was single trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, held a cabinet position with the rank of Ambassador. This time, to expedite negotiations and give them more weight, Trump has appointed two additional cabinet-level officials to handle trade talks with different regions. For Asian economies, Scott Bessent and Ambassador Jamison Greer, who succeeded Lighthizer and previously served on the White House staff, are managing negotiations, including those with China. For Europe, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, and Ambassador Greer are negotiating with the European Trade Representative. When the EU representative visits Washington, D.C., they meet with Lutnick and Greer, while Chinese or Japanese representatives engage with Bessent and Greer.

In my presentation today, I’m outlining the economic outlook for growth and inflation in the U.S., the Euro area, China, India, and Australia, drawing data from the International Monetary Fund, the Congressional Budget Office, European sources, and my own analysis for Australia.

For the U.S., the best-case scenario is a soft landing, with growth slowing but remaining positive at 1.3% this year and rising to 1.7% next year. This slowdown allows the Federal Reserve to continue cutting interest rates, leading to a decline in the U.S. dollar. This in turn ,triggers a recovery in commodity prices. These prices have stabilized and are now trending upward, with an expected acceleration as the dollar weakens.

U.S. headline inflation is projected to be just below 3% next year, with higher figures this year driven by tariff effects.



Global Economic Perspective

In the Euro area, growth is accelerating slightly, from just under 1% this year to 1.2% next year, with inflation expected to hit the 2% target this year and dip to 1.9% next year.

China’s GDP growth is forecast  at 4% for both this year and next, a step down from previous 5% rates, reflecting a significant slump in domestic demand and very low inflation  Chinese Inflation is only  :   0.2% last year, 0.4% this year, and 0.9% next year.  Despite a massive fiscal push, with a budget deficit around 8% of GDP, China’s debt-to-GDP ratio is rising faster than the U.S.. Yet this is  yielding more modest  domestic growth.

India, on the other hand, continues to outperform, with 6.5% GDP growth last year, 6.2% this year, and  6.3%  next year, surpassing earlier projections.

Read more
In our International Reporting Season Review, we provide an overview of the March 2025 quarterly results season for companies in the Americas, Europe and Asia.

Positive earnings surprise

In our International Reporting Season Review, we provide an overview of the March 2025 quarterly results season for companies in the Americas, Europe and Asia. For all the volatility in markets caused by US trade policy, the results were positive. For all the 187 high profile and blue-chip companies in our International Watchlist, the median EPS beat vs consensus was 3.2%, nearly twice that recorded in the December quarter (1.8%). 37% of companies exceeded consensus EPS expectations by more than 5% and only 9% missed by more than 5%. Communication Services was the most positive sector, led by Magnificent 7 companies Alphabet and Meta Platforms. The median EPS beat in that sector was 13%. Consumer Discretionary was the biggest disappointment (though only a mild one) with EPS falling 0.6% short of analyst estimates on a median basis.

Alphabet and Meta among the best performers

Across our Watchlist, some of the best performing stocks in terms of EPS beats were Alphabet, Boeing, Uniqlo-owner Fast Retailing, Meta Platforms, Newmont and The Walt Disney Company. Notable misses came from insurance broker Aon, BP, PepsiCo, Starbucks, Tesla and UnitedHealth. The latter saw by far the worst share price performance over reporting season, its earnings weakness compounded by the resignation of its CEO and the launch of a fraud investigation by the Department of Justice. British luxury fashion label Burberry had the best performing share price as it gains traction in its turnaround plan.

Tariffs were the main talking point (of course)

The timing of President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ on 2 April, just before the March quarter results started rolling in, guaranteed that US tariffs would be the main talking point throughout reporting season. Most companies took the line that higher tariffs presented a material risk to global growth and inflation. The rapidly shifting sands of US trade policy mean the impact of tariffs is highly uncertain. This didn’t stop many companies from trying to estimate the impact on their profits. This ranged from the very precise ($850m said RTX) to the extremely vague (‘a few hundred million dollars’ hazarded Abbott Laboratories). The rehabilitation of AI as a systemic driver of long-term value was a key theme of reporting season, with many companies reporting what Palantir Technologies described as an ‘unstoppable whirlwind of demand’ and others indicating an increase in planned AI investment. The deterioration in consumer confidence was another key talking point, though most companies could only express concern about a possible future softening in demand rather than any actual evidence of a hit to sales.

Our International Focus List continues to outperform

In this report, we also report on the performance of the Morgans International Focus List, which is now up 25.3% since inception last year, outperforming the benchmark S&P 500 by 20.4%.


Morgans clients receive exclusive insights such as access to our latest International Reporting Season article.

Contact us today to begin your journey with Morgans.

      
Contact us
      
      
Find an adviser
      
Read more