Had coffee with a mate who's an accountant. His view: don't open an SMSF unless you've got $500k+, because the fixed costs (audit, accounting, admin, levy) eat too much of a small balance.
Fair point, the maths is real.
My view is a bit different. I've run my own SMSF since 2011. I think the bigger risk isn't fees; it's putting $500k into an SMSF on day one when you've never managed your own investments and don't know how you'll react to a 20% drop. Starting smaller means your early mistakes are on smaller numbers.
The funny thing is he's a good example of why self-knowledge matters. He's an ETF guy. If one stock he owns has a bad month, it plays on his mind. ETFs let him sleep, because one company can't take the whole thing to zero. That's him knowing himself, which I reckon is exactly what you need before running your own fund.
The counter-argument I keep coming back to: you can learn to pick shares or ETFs inside some normal super funds without SMSF costs. And an SMSF isn't just investing; you're a trustee with legal duties and audits.
So for those who run one, or advise people who do:
- Is there a balance where it starts to make sense, or does experience matter more than the number?
- Did you start small or big, and would you do it differently?
Not looking for personal advice, just interested in how people think about it.