Super Nation is a fortnightly column that examines, explains and analyses key issues in one of Australia's largest, fastest-growing and most important industries: superannuation.
An unspoken détente in super may have ended in recent weeks as differences between rival peak super bodies are made public.
A hint of it came with media coverage suggesting not everybody was happy with the formation of a new group bringing the industry closer to the members of Parliament who make the laws that govern this sector.
But it has widened with one organisation accusing another of providing “misleading” and “flawed” data as the spectre was raised of the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian master funds which cost 11,000 people more than A$1 billion (US$685 million).
Feeling left out
A gossip column article in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) with the headline ‘Industry super’s Mean Girls club’ talked about dissatisfaction with the launch party for the Parliamentary Friends of Super, which is sponsored by Super Members Council.
The newspaper claimed the invitation list was dominated by SMC’s industry super fund members, with retail funds, self-managed super funds (SMSFs) and platforms left “out in the cold”.
Each one is of some substance with industry funds managing $1.643 trillion (US$1 billion), retail funds $891 billion and SMSFs $1.1 trillion at December 2025, with platforms administering more than $800 billion.
The competition between industry and retail funds has been fierce, with the former claiming bragging rights for higher returns and lower fees for a significant period.
The differences are also partly ideological in that industry funds have their roots in the trade union movement, while many retail funds came out of the private sector across insurance and funds management.
But the retirement savings worm has started to turn in recent times as retail fund performance has improved and benefited from inflows from wealth platforms.
Rival industry body Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), which helped establish the Friends group and also represents retail funds and platforms, was also “frozen” out after earlier offering to sponsor the launch.
Switching concerns
The launch came almost a month after SMC issued a media release saying its data showed switching between super funds had accelerated sharply over the past year and was dominated by younger Australians with lower super balances.
In 2024–25, 68% of Australians who moved from five unnamed profit-to-member funds into for-profit platform-based funds had less than $100,000 in super, while more than 50% of those who went into SMSFs had less than $100,000, the data showed.
Seven in 10 members switching did not have a relationship with financial advisers, suggesting it could be driven by social media advertising, lead generation or third-party influences and not long-term advice in their best financial interests, SMC said.
“These patterns should be ringing alarm bells for both regulators and policymakers in the wake of the Shield and First Guardian collapses,” the peak body said.
Data disputed
The Financial Services Council (FSC) hit back, saying its data showed Australians switching to a platform from a default superannuation fund were typically older investors who had received professional financial advice and had higher balances.
The FSC, whose members include but are not limited to super platform operators, said this disproved “recent claims made by the Super Members Council (SMC)”.
The data, based on a survey of the seven largest platform providers, showed the average balance of newly established platform accounts was more than $349,500, with an average age of 59.
Among younger investors switching to superannuation platforms, balances were significantly higher than those of their peers in the broader super system.
Under 30s had average balances of $54,800, more than three times higher than the $16,200 average of their peers in accounts regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).
New accounts for those aged 30-45 had an average balance of $162,300, more than twice the $80,800 average for that age group across all APRA-regulated funds.
This indicates these customers were likely to be higher-income earners building their retirement savings by engaging with their superannuation earlier.
“The FSC is concerned that misleading data risks distorting the superannuation policy debate following the failures of Shield and First Guardian,” it said.
It was incorrect to infer that a super consumer who had switched out of a default fund on the recommendation of a financial adviser had been subject to predatory lead generation or poor advice.
“The methodology used by SMC to criticise the choice sector is flawed and should not be allowed to distort the public policy debate,” FSC Chief Executive Officer Blake Briggs said.
Resistance grows
The SMSF Association also responded with Chief Executive Officer Peter Burgess saying: “…it would be wrong to assume that small roll-overs to an SMSF are an automatic red flag and a sign of poor decision-making. The SMC data only provides part of the story.”
Given more than 70% of SMSFs had two or more members, it was possible small amounts were being rolled into an existing SMSF that was at or moving towards scale, he said.
University of Adelaide research found SMSFs could achieve returns comparable to larger funds with $200,000, but even if the balance was lower, most new SMSF members were mid-to-high income earners with the capacity to grow their balance quickly.
Burgess said many low-balance rollovers were a by-product of the super system or arose from legitimate retirement strategies, but characterising all as indicative of misconduct risked confusing compliant behaviour with misuse.
Small amounts may be rolled into SMSFs for other reasons like contribution splitting, insurance-related purposes, or to access specific investment opportunities.
“Taken together, these factors demonstrate that rollover patterns and balance levels are often shaped by system design and legitimate planning strategies,” Burgess said.
Monash University Professor, Banking & Finance, Susan Thorpe, said Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data showed the proportion of new SMSF members aged 35-44 grew from 36.8% in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2021 to 39.1% in Q4 2025.
“So while the share of 35-44 years among new SMSF members is probably increasing, that increase does not seem very rapid in aggregate,” Thorp said.
But SMC refused to back down with CEO Misha Schubert saying “alarm bells should be ringing” when data showed a clear skew towards younger people and people with lower balances starting to be switched into more complex, higher cost products”.
“This doesn’t mean that more typical switching of pre-retirees to platforms and SMSFs isn’t also occurring – two things can be happening at the same time - but the cause for concern is a spike in potentially riskier switching among lower balance and younger members, which it appears could be influenced by social media ads and lead generation,” Schubert said.
