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.
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
The Wall Street Journal of 21 August 2025 carried an article which noted that Ether, a cryptocurrency long overshadowed by Bitcoin has surged in price in August.
The article noted that unlike Bitcoin, there was not a hard cap on Ether supply, but the digital token is increasingly used for transactions on Ethereum , a platform where developers build and operate applications that can be used to trade, lend and borrow digital currencies.
This is important because of the passage on 18 July 2025 of the GENIUS act which creates the first regulatory framework for Stablecoins. Stablecoins are US Dollar pegged digital tokens. The Act requires that Stablecoins , are to be to be fully backed by US Treasury Instruments or other US dollar assets .
The idea is that if Ethereum becomes part of the infrastructure of Stablecoins , Ether would then benefit from increased activity on the Ethereum platform.
Tokenized money market funds from Blackrock and other institutions already operate on the Ethereum network.
The Wall Street journal article goes on to note that activity on the Ethereum platform has already amounted to more than $US1.2 trillion this year ,compared with $960 million to the same period last year.
So today ,we thought it might be a good idea to try and work out what makes Bitcoin and Ether go up and down.
As Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman once said " Economists don't care if a Model works in practice ,as long as it works in theory" . Our theoretical model might be thought as a "Margin Lending Model" . In such a model variations in Bitcoin are a function of variation in the value of the US stock market .
As the US stock market rises, then the amount of cash at margin available to buy Bitcoin also rises .
The reverse occurs when the US stock market goes down .
Our model of Bitcoin based on this theory is shown in Figure 1 . We are surprised that this simple model explains 88% of monthly variation in Bitcoin since the beginning of 2019.
At the end of August our model told us that when Bitcoin was then valued at $US112,491 , that it was then overvalued by $US15,785 per token.
Modeling Ether is not so simple . Ether is a token but Ethereum is a business. this makes the price of Either sensitive to variations in conditions in the US Corporate Debt Market.
Taking that into account as well as stock market strength, gives us a model for Ether which is shown in figure 2.
This model explains 70.1% of monthly variation since the beginning of 2019. Our model tells us that at the end of August, Ether at $US 4,378per token was $US 560 above our model estimate of $US3,818.00 . Ether is moderately overvalued.
So neither Bitcoin nor Ether are cheap right now.
ETFs for each of Bitcoin and Ether are now available from your friendly local stockbroker .
But right now , our models tell us that neither of them is cheap!
There is more to what happened at Jackson Hole than just the speech by Jay Powell.
In my talk last week ,I said that our model of the Fed funds rate stood at 3.65%. This is actually 70 basis points lower than the actual level of 4.35%.
I also said that the Fed was successfully achieving a "soft landing" with employment growing at 1%. This was below the median level of employment growth since 2004 of 1.6%.
Still , as I listened to Jay Powell Speak , I noted a sense of concern in his voice when he said that "The July employment report released earlier this month slowed to an average pace of only 35,000 average per month over the past three months, down from 168,000 per month during 2024. This slowdown is much larger than assessed just a month ago."
My interpretation of this is that Chair Powell may be concerned that the "soft landing " achieved by the Fed may be in danger of turning into a "hard landing". This suggested a rate cut of 25 basis points by the Fed at the next meeting on 17-18 September.
This would leave the Fed Funds rate at 4.1%. This would mean that the Fed Funds rate would still be 45 basis points higher than our model estimate of 3.65%. Hence the Fed Funds rate would remain "modestly restrictive."
Dire Demography?
Jackson Hole was actually a Fed Strategy meeting with many speakers in addition to Jay Powell.
Two speakers who followed on the afternoon of his speech were Claudia Goldin, Professor at Harvard
and Chad Janis of Stanford Graduate Business School. They each gave foreboding presentations on the demography of developed economies.
Claudia Goldin spoke on "The Downside of Fertility". She noted that birth rates in the Developed World are now generally below replacement level. The Total Fertility rate is below 2 in France , the US and the UK.
It is dangerously low below 1.5 in Italy and Spain and below 1 in Korea. She observes that the age of first marriage of couples in the US is now 7 years later than it was in the 1960's. This reduces their child bearing years.
This paper was then followed by a discussion of it by Chad Janis of Stanford Graduate Business School. He noted that there is a profound difference between a future with a replacement rate of 2.2 kids per family , which he called the "Expanding Cosmos" with
• Growing population leading to a growing number of researchers, leading to rising living standards and Exponential growth in both living standards and population AND a replacement level of 1.9 kids per family which leads to
• Negative population growth , which he called "an Empty Planet " and the end of humanity
as numbers of researchers declines and economic growth ceases.
Of course this seems all very serious indeed . Perhaps what this really means ,is that if we want to save the world , we should just relax and start having a lot more fun!!
Today, we’re diving into how the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) sets interest rates as it nears its target of 2.5% inflation, and what happens when that target is reached. Back in 1898, Swedish economist Knut Wicksell published *Money, Interest and Commodity Prices*, introducing the concept of the natural rate of interest. This is the real interest rate that maintains price stability. Unlike Wicksell’s time, modern central banks, including the RBA, focus on stabilising the rate of inflation rather than the price level itself.
In Australia, the RBA aims to keep inflation at 2.5%. To achieve this, it sets a real interest rate, known as the neutral rate, which can only be determined in practice by observing what rate stabilises inflation at 2.5%. Looking at data from January 2000, we see significant fluctuations in Australia’s real cash rate, but over the long term, the average real rate has been 0.85%. This suggests that the RBA can maintain its 2.5% inflation target with an average real cash rate of 0.85%. This is a valuable insight as the RBA approaches this target.
As inflation nears 2.5%, we can estimate that the cash rate will settle at 2.5% (the inflation target) plus the long-term real rate of 0.85%, resulting in a cash rate of 3.35%. At the RBA meeting on Tuesday, 12 August, when the trimmed mean inflation rate for June had already dropped to 2.7%, the RBA reduced the real cash rate to 0.9%, resulting in a cash rate of 3.6%.
We anticipate that when the trimmed mean inflation for September falls to 2.5%, as expected, the cash rate will adjust to 2.5% plus the long-term real rate of 0.85%, bringing it to 3.35%. The September quarter trimmed mean will be published at the end of October, just before the RBA’s November meeting. We expect the RBA to hold the cash rate steady at its September meeting, but when it meets in November, with the trimmed mean likely at 2.5%, the cash rate is projected to fall to 3.35%.
