SMSF Investment Trends: Who Uses Them, How Big They Are, and Where the Money Goes

Introduction

As of 30 June 2025, Australia had 653,062 SMSFs and an estimated 1,203,127 members, with the number of funds up 6.26% year-on-year. At the same time, the sector now holds about $1.052 trillion in total assets, which makes SMSFs too large to treat as a niche corner of super.

This report-style article walks through what the ATO’s latest quarterly and annual datasets show about SMSFs:

• How fast the population is growing

• Where new SMSFs are being administered

• Who is joining now, how asset allocation shifts with fund size

• How money moves in and out of SMSFs each year through contributions, transfers, benefit payments, and expenses.

A note on how to read the numbers. The ATO flags that much of the quarterly data is estimated, and that some measures (particularly exits) can be revised as notifications are processed. Some series are updated quarterly (such as population and asset allocation), while others update annually with the June quarter release. Where useful, this article uses medians as well as averages, because SMSF balances are not evenly distributed, and “average” can be pulled upward by a smaller number of very large funds.

How Fast Is the SMSF Population Growing as of June 2025?

Australia’s SMSF sector is expanding, and the June 2025 quarterly dataset gives a clear count of how many funds exist, how quickly the population is growing, and how many Australians are members. The figures below come with two built-in constraints from the ATO’s methodology notes:

• Much of the quarterly movement is estimated and can be revised as more reporting comes in.

• Exits in particular can lag because wind-ups are often notified around year-end.

This section sticks to what the tables show, with the arithmetic shown in ways that are easy to sanity-check.

How Many SMSFs and Members Are There in June 2025?

As of 30 June 2025, the table reports:

• Total SMSFs: 653,062

• Total SMSF members (estimated): 1,203,127

That member number is explicitly noted as an estimate, extrapolated from recent return data for the latest period.

What Changed Over the Last 12 Months?

Between June 2024 and June 2025, the annual population table shows:

Metric	June 2024	June 2025	Change	Change as a percentage
Total SMSFs	614,613	653,062	+38,449	+6.26%
Total members	1,133,070	1,203,127	+70,057	+6.18%

The percentages are straightforward ratios:

• Fund growth: 38,449 ÷ 614,613 = 6.26%

• Member growth: 70,057 ÷ 1,133,070 = 6.18%

Is This Growth New or Part of a Longer Trend?

The annual net change figures show a steady lift over time, then a clear step-up in the most recent year.

Here is the net new SMSF count (new entries less exits) for each year ended June:

Year Ended	Net New SMSFs
June 2020	3,472
June 2021	7,194
June 2022	11,330
June 2023	11,332
June 2024	17,886
June 2025	38,449

The standout is the jump from 17,886 (June 2024) to 38,449 (June 2025). That is an increase of 20,563 net SMSFs, which is a little over double the prior year’s net growth.

Are SMSFs Mostly Run by Individuals or Couples?

The membership-to-fund ratio stays close to two, which is consistent with SMSFs being dominated by individual and couple structures.

• June 2025: 1,203,127 members ÷ 653,062 funds = 1.84 members per fund

• June 2020: 1,062,215 members ÷ 566,871 funds = 1.87 members per fund

Those two numbers are close enough to describe the structure of the sector as broadly stable: more funds and more members, without a meaningful shift toward larger multi-member funds.

What Does the Quarterly Data Say About Momentum?

The quarterly table breaks the annual story into the four quarters that make up the year. The net additions for the year ended June 2025 were not driven by one unusual quarter.

How Consistent Was Growth Across the Year?

Net new entries by quarter across 2024–25 were:

Quarter	Net New SMSFs
September 2024	10,359
December 2024	8,854
March 2025	9,365
June 2025	9,871

That totals 38,449 net new SMSFs, matching the annual table. The range is narrow – roughly 8,854 to 10,359 net new funds per quarter – which supports describing the year as sustained growth, not a single spike.

Why Do June Quarters Often Look Odd on Exits?

The ATO notes a consistent timing issue: wind-ups are often notified at the end of the income year, so June quarters tend to show higher exits than other quarters. The data reflects that pattern historically:

• June 2020 exits: 12,479

• June 2021 exits: 13,686

• June 2022 exits: 12,063

• June 2023 exits: 11,822

• June 2024 exits: 11,211

In that context, the June 2025 exit figure of 1,129 should be treated as provisional, because the ATO also flags that recent quarter establishments and wind-ups can be understated until notifications are received and processed. It is safer to say “reported exits are currently lower” than to claim exits have structurally collapsed.

The population figures to 30 June 2025 point to a larger, faster-growing SMSF sector: 653,062 funds, 1,203,127 members, and 6.26% year-on-year growth in fund count. The quarterly breakdown shows that growth was steady across the year, while the exit numbers require care because wind-ups are commonly reported with a lag, particularly around June.

What Does the June 2025 Asset Allocation Snapshot Show?

The June 2025 tables estimate how SMSF assets are spread across listed shares, cash, property, trusts, and smaller categories such as crypto and overseas holdings. These figures are estimates based on SMSF reporting on 30 June, and the ATO notes that the September 2024 quarter onward is extrapolated from 2023–24 return data, so quarter-to-quarter shifts should be read as directional, not forensic.

How Large Is the SMSF Asset Pool?

As of June 2025, the sector is reported at:

Measure	June 2025
Total Australian and overseas assets	$1,051,803m
Borrowings	$27,206m
Other liabilities	$9,583m
Total net Australian and overseas assets	$1,015,014m

Note that $1,051,803m is about $1.052 trillion, and $1,015,014m is about $1.015 trillion in net assets.

Where Is Most SMSF Money Held?

The June 2025 allocation is concentrated. Listed shares and cash alone account for close to half of all SMSF assets, and the top five categories make up nearly three quarters.

Asset Category	June 2025 ($m)	Share Of Total Assets
Listed shares	295,981	28.1%
Cash and term deposits	170,656	16.2%
Unlisted trusts	132,777	12.6%
Non-residential real property	105,287	10.0%
Listed trusts	70,796	6.7%
Other managed investments	60,948	5.8%
Residential real property	56,587	5.4%
Debt securities	13,158	1.3%
Unlisted shares	12,053	1.1%
Loans	6,754	0.6%
Other assets	26,365	2.5%
Crypto assets	3,018	0.29%
Overseas shares	20,314	1.9%
Overseas managed investments	2,336	0.22%
Other overseas assets	2,874	0.27%
Overseas non-residential real property	213	0.02%
Overseas residential real property	426	0.04%
Total	1,051,803	100%

The five largest categories by value are listed shares, cash and term deposits, unlisted trusts, non-residential property, and listed trusts. Combined, they total $775,497m, which is 73.7% of all SMSF assets.

How Much Did SMSF Assets Grow Over the Last 12 Months?

From June 2024 to June 2025, total SMSF assets increased from $996,970m to $1,051,803m.

Measure	June 2024 ($m)	June 2025 ($m)	Change ($m)	Change (%)
Total assets	996,970	1,051,803	+54,833	+5.5%
Net assets	962,099	1,015,014	+52,915	+5.5%

That’s an increase of about $54.8b in total assets in 12 months.

Which Asset Categories Moved the Most?

The largest contributor to the 12-month lift was listed shares, both in raw dollars and in percentage terms.

Asset Category	June 2024 ($m)	June 2025 ($m)	Change ($m)	Change (%)
Listed shares	268,506	295,981	+27,475	+10.2%
Unlisted trusts	123,257	132,777	+9,520	+7.7%
Listed trusts	65,720	70,796	+5,076	+7.7%
Non-residential real property	100,257	105,287	+5,030	+5.0%
Residential real property	53,884	56,587	+2,703	+5.0%
Cash and term deposits	168,566	170,656	+2,090	+1.2%
Other managed investments	62,979	60,948	–2,031	–3.2%
Crypto assets	3,119	3,018	–101	–3.2%

Listed shares rose by $27,475m out of the $54,833m total increase, which is about 50.1% of the entire 12-month lift. Put simply, roughly half of the asset growth in the year is explained by the change in listed shares.

How Australia-Weighted Are SMSFs?

Overseas holdings exist, but they remain a small slice of the sector.

Across June 2025, overseas categories sum to:

• Overseas shares ($20,314m)

• Overseas non-residential property ($213m)

• Overseas residential property ($426m)

• Overseas managed investments ($2,336m)

• Other overseas assets ($2,874m)

That total is $26,163m, which is about 2.5% of total SMSF assets.

This is useful context for anyone who assumes SMSFs are routinely built around global diversification. The data indicates most SMSF portfolios remain Australia-weighted.

How Big Is the Property Allocation in SMSFs?

Property is material, and it is not the dominant holding.

As of June 2025:

• Australian non-residential property is $105,287m

• Australian residential property is $56,587m

Together, Australian property is $161,874m, about 15.4% of total assets. If you add overseas property ($639m combined), total property becomes $162,513m, about 15.5%.

How Leveraged Are SMSFs on Paper?

The same June 2025 table reports:

• Borrowings are $27,206m, which is about 2.6% of total assets.

• A separate line item labelled Limited recourse borrowing arrangements: $70,533m.

Because the table reports both figures, it is safest to reference them exactly as labelled rather than treating them as interchangeable. What can be said cleanly is that borrowings, as reported, are small relative to total assets at the system level.

What Do These Totals Look Like Per Fund and Per Member?

Using the June 2025 totals and the June 2025 population count (653,062 SMSFs and 1,203,127 members), the reported net asset pool implies:

Metric	Approximate Value
Net assets per SMSF	$1.554m
Net assets per member	$844k

These are simple averages across the full sector. They are not the “typical” balance, and later sections on medians will show why.

What Should Australians Take from This Allocation Mix?

The June 2025 SMSF asset pool is large, concentrated, and still dominated by traditional building blocks: listed shares and cash, followed by trust structures and property. The smaller categories are instructive too: crypto is around 0.29% of total assets, and total overseas holdings are around 2.5%, which keeps the “SMSFs are all crypto” and “SMSFs are all global” narratives in check.

How Does Asset Allocation Change as an SMSF Grows?

The headline asset mix for SMSFs can hide a basic reality: small funds and large funds do not invest the same way. The ATO’s fund-size distribution table (based on annual return data for 2019–20 through 2023–24) breaks portfolios into asset percentages within each balance band. In other words, the table is not telling you “how much money is in each band”. It is telling you, “within a band, what the portfolio looks like”.

For readability, the table below pulls the most decision-relevant categories for 2023–24 and lines up a few representative balance bands.

What Does the Portfolio Mix Look Like at Different Fund Sizes?

Asset Type	$1–$50k	$200k–$500k	$1m–$2m	$5m–$10m	$20m–$50m	>$50m
Cash and term deposits	49.0%	31.7%	18.7%	14.1%	11.7%	10.3%
Listed shares	19.6%	21.5%	26.0%	29.8%	23.8%	23.7%
Unlisted trusts	2.6%	8.0%	9.6%	14.7%	19.8%	21.8%
Non-residential real property	0.4%	3.9%	7.9%	13.0%	13.6%	10.7%
Residential real property	0.6%	4.8%	7.1%	4.0%	2.0%	2.6%
Limited recourse borrowing arrangements	<0.1%	6.6%	9.6%	2.7%	4.1%	8.3%
Crypto-currency	7.5%	2.2%	0.3%	0.1%	<0.1%	0.5%
Overseas shares	3.0%	1.7%	1.2%	2.2%	4.1%	2.9%

That single view captures the main pattern: as funds get larger, cash falls, listed shares and unlisted trusts become more prominent, and commercial property takes a larger seat at the table.

Why Do Smaller SMSFs Hold So Much Cash?

Small SMSFs are cash-heavy to a degree many people do not expect. In 2023–24, funds in the $1–$50k band held 49.0% of assets in cash and term deposits. At the other end, funds above $50m held 10.3% in cash.

That is a 38.7 percentage point difference. It helps explain how a sector-wide cash figure can sit in the mid-teens, while a material share of small funds sit closer to “half cash”. It also frames an operational point: if a fund stays small for a long time, high cash weight can become a structural feature rather than a temporary staging area.

How Does Cash Exposure Fall as Balances Rise?

The drop is stepwise, not subtle:

• From 49.0% at $1–$50k, to 31.7% at $200k–$500k

• Down again to 18.7% at $1m–$2m

• Settling around 14.1% at $5m–$10m, and 10.3% above $50m

This is not a judgement call on “good” or “bad”. It is a measurable shift in how SMSF portfolios are built as balances scale.

When Do Listed Shares Become the Centre of Gravity?

Listed shares are material in every band, but they become most dominant in the mid-to-upper ranges. In 2023–24, listed shares were:

• 19.6% in the $1–$50k band, and

• 26.0% in $1m–$2m, and

• 29.8% in $5m–$10m

Above $50m, listed shares are still substantial at 23.7%. The pattern is not “bigger fund equals only listed shares”. The pattern is that larger funds tend to reduce pure cash weight and increase exposure to listed markets, alongside other structures.

How Does Unlisted Exposure Change with Size?

Unlisted trusts are where the size effect becomes hard to miss. In 2023–24, unlisted trusts rose from 2.6% in $1–$50k funds to 12.5% in $2m–$5m, then to 19.8% in $20m–$50m, and 21.8% above $50m.

This matters because unlisted holdings are often less liquid, can be harder to value, and can require stronger documentation discipline. The data does not tell you whether an individual fund made a good or bad choice. It does tell you that larger SMSFs allocate more to unlisted structures, which typically increases the technical burden of running the fund properly.

How Does Property Exposure Differ Between Mid and Large Funds?

Property shows two different stories depending on whether it is residential or non-residential.

Residential property peaks in the “established but not huge” bands. In 2023–24, residential real property sat at 7.7% for $500k–$1m funds and 7.1% for $1m–$2m, then fell to 2.9% at $10m–$20m, and 2.0% at $20m–$50m.

Non-residential property moves in the opposite direction. It rises from 3.9% at $200k–$500k, to 10.8% at $2m–$5m, and reaches 13.6% at both $10m–$20m and $20m–$50m (with 10.7% above $50m).

What Does This Say About Property Strategy by Balance Band?

It points to a practical distinction: mid-sized SMSFs are more likely to show meaningful residential property exposure, while larger funds tilt more toward commercial property. That is visible in the percentages, and it is consistent across the size ladder.

Where Does Borrowing Appear Most Common?

The table’s “Limited recourse borrowing arrangements” line is not evenly distributed across fund sizes. It clusters in a narrow range.

In 2023–24:

• $200k–$500k: 6.6%

• $500k–$1m: 20.2%

• $1m–$2m: 9.6%

• $5m–$10m: 2.7%

That 20.2% figure at $500k–$1m is the standout. Whatever the underlying strategy choices in those funds, the data indicates that borrowing-linked exposure is far more prominent in the mid-band than it is in very large SMSFs.

How Has Borrowing Shifted Over Time in That Mid Band?

The $500k–$1m band increased from 16.7% in 2019–20 to 20.2% in 2023–24 on the same measure. That is a measurable lift over the five-year span covered in this table.

Who Holds Crypto Exposure in SMSFs?

At the sector level, crypto can look small, but the fund-size table shows where it concentrates.

In 2023–24, crypto-currency allocations were:

• 7.5% in $1–$50k funds,

• 8.5% in >$50k–$100k,

• 5.5% in >$100k–$200k, and

• 0.3% in $1m–$2m, with 0.1% in $5m–$10m

The pattern is concentration in smaller balance bands, not broad-based adoption across the size spectrum.

How Did Crypto Exposure Change in Small Funds Across Recent Years?

In the $1–$50k band, crypto-currency moved from 3.0% in 2019–20, to 12.4% in 2021–22, then back to 7.5% in 2023–24. That sequence is specific, and it is useful for avoiding vague claims about crypto “always rising” or “disappearing”.

How Much Overseas Exposure Do SMSFs Take as They Grow?

Overseas shares rise with fund size, although they remain a minority position even in larger bands. In 2023–24, overseas shares were 1.1% in $500k–$1m, 2.2% in $5m–$10m, and 4.1% in $20m–$50m.

This is a size-linked increase, but the absolute level stays modest. A larger SMSF is more likely to include overseas listed exposure, but the table does not support the idea that large SMSFs are predominantly global portfolios.

Small funds tend to carry high cash weight and, in some cases, concentrated satellite exposures such as crypto. As balances rise, portfolios typically shift toward listed shares, unlisted trusts, and non-residential property, which can increase complexity in valuation, liquidity planning, and governance. Borrowing-linked exposure appears most prominent in the mid-sized bands, particularly around $500k–$1m, which is also where property allocations are more visible.

What Does SMSF Membership Size Look Like in Practice?

When people picture an SMSF, they often imagine a small decision-making unit. The annual return data supports that assumption, and it also shows a slow but consistent shift toward single-member funds over the last five income years.

This section uses the ATO’s “proportion of funds by number of members” distribution for 2019–20 to 2023–24.

How Concentrated Are SMSFs in One and Two Member Funds?

In 2023–24, the sector is dominated by one and two member structures.

Number Of Members	Share of SMSFs in 2023–24
1	25.3%
2	67.9%
3	3.3%
4	3.1%
5	0.2%
6	0.1%

That means 93.2% of SMSFs have either one or two members, and only 6.7% have three or more members. Funds with five or six members are functionally niche, at 0.3% combined.

How Has the Mix Changed Over the Last Five Years?

The shape of the distribution is stable, but the direction of travel is clear: single-member funds have grown as a share of the total, and two-member funds have eased slightly.

What Has Happened to Single Member SMSFs?

Single-member SMSFs increased from 23.8% in 2019–20 to 25.3% in 2023–24. That is a rise of 1.5 percentage points across five years.

This is not a dramatic re-ordering of the sector, but it is consistent year to year, and it changes what “typical” administration looks like. A one-member SMSF has fewer moving parts, but it also has less built-in continuity if that one decision-maker becomes unavailable.

What Has Happened to Two Member SMSFs?

Two-member SMSFs remain the standard structure, but their share has drifted down from 68.7% in 2019–20 to 67.9% in 2023–24, a fall of 0.8 percentage points.

Couples still run the show in aggregate, and that matters for planning conversations, because decisions usually need to work across two lives, two retirement timings, and two sets of beneficiary intentions.

What Has Happened to Larger Member SMSFs?

Funds with three and four members have both declined modestly over the five-year span:

• Three-member funds: 3.6% → 3.3%

• Four-member funds: 3.8% → 3.1%

Five and six member SMSFs remain extremely rare in every year shown, and they do not materially influence the sector-wide “average” structure.

What Does This Mean for How SMSFs Are Run Day to Day?

The dominance of one and two member SMSFs has practical consequences. Most SMSFs are not committees. They are one person, or a couple, making calls on investment selection, cash management, paperwork discipline, and audit readiness.

It also helps explain why system-wide averages can be misleading. When a sector is largely one and two member funds, the key questions tend to be operational as much as financial: who is making decisions, how are decisions documented, and what happens if a trustee cannot act.

Where Are SMSFs Administered Across Australia?

SMSFs are national, but they are not evenly distributed. The ATO’s location tables estimate the share of funds, members, and total assets by state or territory, using SMSF annual return data for 2019–20 to 2023–24.

One important technical point sits behind every number in this section: state and territory refers to where the fund is administered, not necessarily where the members live. That distinction matters if you are comparing the tables to population statistics, or to where you personally reside.

What Does the State Distribution Look Like In 2023–24?

The sector is heavily concentrated in NSW, Victoria, and Queensland.

State or Territory	Share of Funds	Share of Members	Share of Assets
NSW	33.4%	33.7%	34.9%
VIC	30.5%	30.5%	31.2%
QLD	17.4%	17.2%	15.9%
WA	9.2%	9.2%	8.3%
SA	6.7%	6.7%	6.9%
ACT	1.4%	1.4%	1.5%
TAS	1.2%	1.2%	1.2%
NT	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%

If you add up the big three:

• NSW + VIC = 63.9% of SMSFs by fund count (33.4% + 30.5%).

• NSW + VIC + QLD = 81.3% of SMSFs by fund count (adds 17.4%).

That is the practical takeaway: most SMSF administration activity sits on the east coast.

Are SMSF Assets Concentrated in the Same Places as SMSF Funds?

The asset distribution is slightly more concentrated than the fund distribution, which gives a useful clue about relative fund size by administration state.

To make that comparison concrete, the table below subtracts the share of funds from the share of assets. A positive number suggests that, on average, funds administered in that state hold a slightly larger slice of assets than their slice of fund count.

State Or Territory	Assets Share Minus Funds Share
NSW	+1.5 pp (34.9% – 33.4%)
VIC	+0.7 pp (31.2% – 30.5%)
SA	+0.2 pp (6.9% – 6.7%)
ACT	+0.1 pp (1.5% – 1.4%)
TAS	0.0 pp (1.2% – 1.2%)
QLD	–1.5 pp (15.9% – 17.4%)
WA	–0.9 pp (8.3% – 9.2%)
NT	–0.1 pp (0.1% – 0.2%)

Two points are worth stating precisely:

• NSW and Victoria account for 66.1% of assets (34.9% + 31.2%), which is higher than their 63.9% share of funds. That implies slightly larger average asset pools in NSW and Victoria, relative to the national picture.

• Queensland has 17.4% of funds, but 15.9% of assets, suggesting a slightly smaller average asset pool relative to its fund count.

The numbers do not tell you why this happens, and they do not need to. The value is in what they allow you to say without guessing.

Why Do Members Track Funds So Closely?

The member shares are almost identical to the fund shares across every state and territory. For example, in 2023–24 NSW is 33.4% of funds and 33.7% of members, while Victoria is 30.5% for both.

That tight tracking lines up with the membership structure data: SMSFs are overwhelmingly one and two member funds, so the member distribution typically moves in step with the fund distribution.

Which States Are Gaining or Losing Share?

Across 2019–20 to 2023–24:

• Queensland’s share of funds rose from 16.9% to 17.4% (+0.5 percentage points), and its share of assets rose from 15.1% to 15.9% (+0.8 percentage points).

• NSW’s share of funds is broadly stable (33.6% to 33.4%), but its share of assets eased from 35.8% to 34.9% (–0.9 percentage points).

• SA’s share of funds dropped from 7.5% in 2020–21 to 6.7% in 2023–24.

The SMSF sector is administered primarily in NSW, Victoria, and Queensland, and those three jurisdictions account for 81.3% of funds. NSW and Victoria also account for a slightly larger share of assets than their share of funds, which points to marginally larger average asset pools in those administration centres.

Who Are SMSF Members by Age and Gender?

SMSFs are often discussed as an investment structure, but the June 2025 member profile makes it clear they are also a life-stage structure. The figures in this section are an estimate based on Australian Business Register data, and they describe individual SMSF members as at the end of June 2025 (data extracted 17 July 2025).

The table below uses the ATO’s reported percentages. Think of each percentage point as “out of every 100 SMSF members”.

What Does the Age Profile of SMSF Members Look Like?

The age distribution is heavily weighted to older Australians. This is not a vague “skew”. It is measurable in several simple roll-ups.

Age Range	Share of SMSF Members
Under 35	3.3%
Under 45	15.5%
45 and over	84.5%
50 and over	75.0%
60 and over	50.8%
65 and over	38.2%
75 and over	16.7%

Half of SMSF members are 60 or older, and three quarters are 50 or older. That sits neatly alongside the broader story from the other tables: SMSFs are growing, but the membership base is still dominated by people either approaching retirement or already in it.

Which Age Bands Are the Largest?

Averages can blur the picture, so it helps to call out the biggest cohorts.

Age Range	Share of SMSF Members
35–44	12.2%
45–49	9.5%
50–54	11.9%
55–59	12.3%
60–64	12.6%
65–69	11.5%
70–74	10.0%
75–84	13.7%
85+	3.0%
Under 25	0.6%
25–34	2.7%

The single largest band is 75–84 at 13.7%. If you group the “retirement transition” years, members aged 55–74 account for 46.4% of the entire SMSF member base. That is almost half the sector sitting in a span where retirement timing, pension settings, liquidity management, and estate planning decisions tend to become more frequent, and less forgiving of admin shortcuts.

How Balanced Is SMSF Membership by Gender?

The overall split is close, but it is not perfectly even.

In June 2025, the ATO reports:

• Male: 52.7%

• Female: 47.3%

That difference is not large enough to support sweeping claims, but it is large enough to be stated as a fact: there are more male SMSF members than female SMSF members, using this estimate.

Where Do Age and Gender Patterns Diverge?

The age-by-gender bands mostly track closely, with a few consistent deviations at the edges.

Age Range	Male Share	Female Share
35–44	11.8%	12.7%
75–84	14.3%	13.0%
85+	3.5%	2.4%

Women are slightly more represented in 35–44 (12.7% vs 11.8%). Men are slightly more represented in the oldest bands, including 75–84 and 85+. The practical takeaway is narrow and usable: the membership base is broadly balanced, but it tilts male overall, and the tilt is more visible in the oldest cohorts.

What Should You Take from This Demographic Profile?

If you are reading SMSF statistics to decide whether the structure fits you, the June 2025 age profile sets expectations about what SMSFs are commonly used for in practice. With 50.8% of members aged 60+, and 75.0% aged 50+, the SMSF sector is anchored in later-stage planning, where cashflow, sequencing risk, and documentation standards matter as much as asset selection.

This does not mean younger Australians are excluded. It does mean that when SMSFs are discussed as a mainstream option, the data shows that mainstream adoption has been led by older members, and the operational demands of running a fund tend to show up more sharply as members move from accumulation into retirement income decisions.

What Does SMSF Member Taxable Income Look Like?

Taxable income is a useful signal, but it is not a proxy for SMSF wealth. The ATO’s June 2025 income distribution is based on Australian Business Register data and each member’s most recently lodged personal tax return. It describes taxable income, not super balances, and it sits alongside a member base where 50.8% are aged 60 or over.

The right way to read this table is as a profile of who is in SMSFs, not as a shortcut for “how much money SMSF members have”.

How Is Taxable Income Distributed Across Members?

In June 2025, SMSF members sit across a wide taxable income spread. The table below shows the share of members in each band.

Taxable Income Range	Share of SMSF Members
$0 to $20,000	16.9%
>$20,000 to $40,000	13.2%
>$40,000 to $60,000	11.0%
>$60,000 to $80,000	8.9%
>$80,000 to $100,000	8.1%
>$100,000 to $150,000	16.1%
>$150,000 to $200,000	10.2%
>$200,000 to $500,000	10.6%
>$500,000	3.2%
Unknown	1.8%
Total	100%

Two points are worth stating without interpretation.

First, lower taxable income bands are common in the membership base. Second, higher taxable income bands are also common. This is a mixed population.

How Many Members Sit Below or Above Key Thresholds?

To make the distribution easier to grasp, it helps to roll the bands up into thresholds people recognise.

Threshold	Share of SMSF Members
Under $40,000	30.1%
Under $60,000	41.1%
Under $80,000	50.0%
Under $100,000	58.1%
$100,000 and Over	40.1%
$150,000 and Over	24.0%
$200,000 and Over	13.8%
$500,000 and Over	3.2%
Unknown	1.8%

Read those thresholds side by side and the shape becomes clear:

• 58.1% of SMSF members report under $100,000 taxable income.

• 40.1% report $100,000 or more.

• 13.8% report $200,000 or more.

Given the age profile of SMSF members (with a majority in later working years and retirement years), this split is compatible with a membership base that includes retirees, semi-retirees, salaried professionals, and business owners.

How Does Taxable Income Differ by Gender?

The gender split in SMSF membership is close overall, but the income distribution is not identical. Women are more represented in lower taxable income bands, while men are more represented in the higher taxable income bands.

Here are a few bands where the differences are clearest.

Income Band	Male	Female	Difference
$0 to $20,000	14.8%	19.3%	Female +4.5 pp
>$20,000 to $40,000	11.3%	15.3%	Female +4.0 pp
>$200,000 to $500,000	13.4%	7.5%	Male +5.9 pp
>$500,000	4.3%	1.9%	Male +2.4 pp

The same pattern shows up when you group bands into larger buckets.

Grouped Threshold	Male	Female
Under $60,000	35.3%	47.6%
$150,000 and Over	29.6%	17.7%
$200,000 and Over	17.7%	9.4%

This is not a comment on capability, risk tolerance, or outcomes. It is a description of the taxable income profile in the dataset. For couples running an SMSF (which remains the dominant structure), it also reinforces a practical planning reality: household strategy often needs to work across two different taxable income profiles, two contribution capacities, and two retirement timings.

What Should You Take from These Income Numbers?

The June 2025 data shows SMSF members are not a single “high-income” segment. A majority report taxable income under $100,000, and a large minority report $100,000 or more, including 13.8% at $200,000 or more. The gender differences are also clear and quantifiable, with women more represented in the lower taxable income bands and men more represented in the higher bands.

Who Holds SMSF Assets by Fund Balance?

A fund’s balance is not just a brag line. It changes how SMSFs behave, how concentrated the sector is, and how useful “average” figures are as a benchmark. The ATO’s asset range tables do two jobs at once for 2023–24:

1. They show the proportion of SMSFs sitting in each balance band, and

2. They show the proportion of total SMSF assets held by each band.

Read together, they explain a lot of the SMSF conversation in one place: plenty of funds sit around the middle, but most of the money sits above it.

What Share of Funds and Assets Sit in Each Balance Band?

The table below pairs the two distributions for 2023–24.

Fund Asset Range	Share of Funds	Share of Total Assets
$0 to $50,000	5.3%	<0.1%
>$50,000 to $100,000	2.1%	<0.1%
>$100,000 to $200,000	5.1%	0.5%
>$200,000 to $500,000	16.2%	3.5%
>$500,000 to $1m	25.2%	11.3%
>$1m to $2m	23.2%	20.2%
>$2m to $5m	17.4%	32.4%
>$5m to $10m	4.0%	16.7%
>$10m to $20m	1.1%	9.0%
>$20m to $50m	0.2%	4.2%
>$50m	<0.1%	2.2%

A quick read of that table gives you two sector facts that are easy to miss when you only look at totals: there are meaningful numbers of smaller SMSFs, but they hold a tiny slice of total SMSF wealth.

How Concentrated Are SMSF Assets in Larger Funds?

Concentration becomes clearer when you group the balance bands into thresholds that people recognise.

How Much of the Sector Sits Above $500,000, $1m, and $2m?

Using the fund distribution (share of funds) for 2023–24:

Threshold	Share of SMSFs
More Than $500,000	71.1%
More Than $1m	45.9%
More Than $2m	22.7%
Less Than $200,000	12.5%

Now compare that to the asset distribution (share of total assets) for the same thresholds:

Threshold	Share of Total SMSF Assets
More Than $500,000	~96.0%
More Than $1m	84.7%
More Than $2m	64.5%
Less Than $500,000	~4.1%

Two statements are accurate, specific, and useful in a blog context:

• 45.9% of SMSFs hold 84.7% of total SMSF assets (funds above $1m).

• 22.7% of SMSFs hold 64.5% of total SMSF assets (funds above $2m).

That is why the sector’s “average” balance can feel disconnected from what many trustees see in their own fund. The asset pool is not evenly spread.

How Has the Balance Mix Shifted Over Five Years?

The tables include a five-year view from 2019–20 to 2023–24. The direction is not subtle: more SMSFs are sitting in higher balance bands, and a greater share of assets is sitting in very large funds.

Which Balance Bands Are Growing or Shrinking?

Here are the cleanest movements in the share of funds:

Fund Asset Range	Share of Funds 2019–20	Share of Funds 2023–24	Change
>$200,000 to $500,000	22.5%	16.2%	–6.3 pp
>$1m to $2m	19.7%	23.2%	+3.5 pp
>$2m to $5m	12.7%	17.4%	+4.7 pp
>$5m to $10m	2.7%	4.0%	+1.3 pp

That is a measurable upward shift. Fewer funds are clustered in the $200,000–$500,000 band, and more are sitting in $1m+, and $2m+ bands.

Where Is the Asset Pool Becoming More Concentrated?

A similar pattern shows up in the share of total assets:

Fund Asset Range	Share of Assets 2019–20	Share of Assets 2023–24	Change
>$500,000 to $1m	14.2%	11.3%	–2.9 pp
>$10m to $20m	7.0%	9.0%	+2.0 pp
>$50m	1.5%	2.2%	+0.7 pp

This does not mean every SMSF is getting bigger at the same rate. It does mean the sector’s asset pool is increasingly held in the upper balance bands.

What Should You Take from the Asset Range Data?

If you are considering an SMSF, this section is a calibration tool. The sector is not “one big middle”. In 2023–24, nearly three in 10 funds were below $500,000, yet those funds held only around 4% of total SMSF assets. Meanwhile, funds above $1m were fewer than half of all SMSFs, but they held about 85% of total assets.

That concentration also explains why fund size changes the way portfolios behave. Earlier tables show smaller funds tend to be more cash-heavy, while larger funds tend to carry more exposure to listed shares, unlisted trusts, and non-residential property. The asset range split tells you how much of the sector sits in each “behaviour zone,” and why the sector-wide averages can mislead when you apply them to your own situation.

What Do Average and Median SMSF Balances Show?

Sector totals are useful, but they do not tell you what a typical SMSF looks like. For that, the ATO’s annual return dataset reports average and median total assets per SMSF and per SMSF member at the end of each income year.

These figures are estimates based on SMSF annual return data for 2019 to 2020 through 2023 to 2024, and they are best read as benchmarks for “typical” versus “pulled upward by very large funds”.

What Are the Average and Median Asset Levels Over Time?

Here are the reported results, year by year.

Asset Measure	2019 to 2020	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023	2023 to 2024
Average Assets Per Member	$675,529	$780,505	$769,945	$826,643	$881,495
Median Assets Per Member	$392,255	$447,818	$445,907	$480,547	$529,433
Average Assets Per SMSF	$1,266,125	$1,459,793	$1,437,769	$1,540,856	$1,634,608
Median Assets Per SMSF	$696,314	$794,789	$792,182	$851,763	$932,572

The median is the midpoint: half of funds (or members) sit below it, and half sit above it. The average is the total divided by the count, which means it moves upward when a smaller number of very large balances are present.

How Different Are the Average and Median in 2023 to 2024?

In 2023 to 2024, the gap between average and median is large enough to change how you should interpret any “typical SMSF balance” claim.

Measure	Average	Median	Dollar Gap	Average Compared with Median
Assets Per Member	$881,495	$529,433	$352,062	1.66 times
Assets Per SMSF	$1,634,608	$932,572	$702,036	1.75 times

Two statements flow directly from the table:

• A “typical” SMSF by asset size is closer to the median SMSF of $932,572, not the average SMSF of $1,634,608.

• The distribution is top-heavy. The average is materially higher because a smaller number of very large SMSFs pull it upward, which aligns with the asset-range data showing most SMSF assets sit in funds above $1m and $2m.

How Much Did Average and Median Assets Change in the Latest Year?

From 2022 to 2023 to 2023 to 2024, all four measures increased, and the medians rose faster than the averages.

Measure	2022 to 2023	2023 to 2024	Change	Change as a Percentage
Average Assets Per Member	$826,643	$881,495	+$54,852	+6.64%
Median Assets Per Member	$480,547	$529,433	+$48,886	+10.17%
Average Assets Per SMSF	$1,540,856	$1,634,608	+$93,752	+6.08%
Median Assets Per SMSF	$851,763	$932,572	+$80,809	+9.49%

When medians lift faster than averages, it indicates the “middle” of the distribution moved up, not only the very top end.

How Have SMSF Balances Shifted Since 2019 to 2020?

Over the four income-year steps from 2019 to 2020 to 2023 to 2024, both averages and medians increased meaningfully.

Measure	2019 to 2020	2023 to 2024	Total Change	Total Change as a Percentage	Average Annual Growth Rate
Average Assets Per Member	$675,529	$881,495	+$205,966	+30.49%	+6.88%
Median Assets Per Member	$392,255	$529,433	+$137,178	+34.97%	+7.79%
Average Assets Per SMSF	$1,266,125	$1,634,608	+$368,483	+29.10%	+6.59%
Median Assets Per SMSF	$696,314	$932,572	+$236,258	+33.93%	+7.58%

The annual growth rates above are compound rates across the period (four steps), which avoids overstating the impact of any single year’s movement.

What Should Australians Use as a Benchmark?

If you are comparing your SMSF to the sector, the median is the safer starting point because it describes the middle fund, not the fund that gets inflated by very large balances. In 2023 to 2024, that midpoint is $932,572 per SMSF, and $529,433 per member.

The average still has a place. It is useful for understanding the scale of the sector and the degree of concentration, but it is a poor “typical balance” proxy in a sector where a minority of funds hold a majority of assets.

How Does Money Move Through SMSFs Each Year?

Asset totals tell you how large the SMSF sector is. Cashflow tells you what the sector is doing. The ATO’s “flow of funds” table tracks annual inflows and outflows for 2019–20 through 2023–24, split into contributions, rollovers, benefit payments, and expenses. All figures in this section are $m and refer to the 2023–24 income year unless stated otherwise.

This is a sector-level view. It does not describe any one fund, but it is a useful reference point because it shows whether SMSFs, as a group, are still in accumulation mode, or paying out more than they take in.

What Went into SMSFs in 2023 To 2024?

Inflows in 2023–24 come from three sources: member contributions, employer contributions, and inward transfers (rollovers in).

Inflow Type	2023–24 ($m)	Share of Inflows
Member contributions	19,915	42.8%
Employer contributions	6,271	13.5%
Inward transfers	20,319	43.7%
Total inflows	46,505	100%

Two details are concrete and worth stating as-is. First, inward transfers ($20,319m) are slightly larger than member contributions ($19,915m). Second, employer contributions are the smallest of the three inflow lines at $6,271m.

What Left SMSFs in 2023 to 2024?

Outflows are dominated by benefit payments, with outward transfers (rollovers out) and expenses making up the balance.

Outflow Type	2023–24 ($m)	Share of Outflows
Benefit payments	57,662	71.7%
Outward transfers	11,503	14.3%
Total expenses	11,240	14.0%
Total outflows	80,405	100%

This distribution lines up with the member profile shown elsewhere in the dataset, where a large share of SMSF members are in older age bands. When a sector has many members in retirement years, benefit payments will be a primary outflow.

Are SMSFs Net Contributors or Net Payers?

When you net the two sides together, the 2023–24 sector is a net payer.

Summary Measure	2023–24 ($m)
Total inflows	46,505
Total outflows	80,405
Net flow	–33,900

That net figure is not a rounding quirk. It is a direct result of benefit payments being large relative to contributions and net transfers.

To make the scale clearer, compare benefit payments with total contributions:

• Total contributions (member + employer) in 2023–24 are $26,186m (19,915 + 6,271).

• Benefit payments are $57,662m.

Benefit payments are therefore about 2.20 times total contributions (57,662 ÷ 26,186 ≈ 2.20).

If you include net transfers (inward less outward), you still see the same shape:

• Net transfers are +$8,816m (20,319 – 11,503).

• Contributions plus net transfers are $35,002m (26,186 + 8,816).

• Benefit payments remain higher by $22,660m (57,662 – 35,002).

How Have These Flows Shifted Since 2022 to 2023?

Year-on-year movement helps avoid over-reading a single year. Here is the 2023–24 change compared to 2022–23.

Flow Line	2022–23 ($m)	2023–24 ($m)	Change ($m)	Change (%)
Member contributions	18,034	19,915	+1,881	+10.4%
Employer contributions	6,094	6,271	+177	+2.9%
Inward transfers	16,035	20,319	+4,284	+26.7%
Outward transfers	9,600	11,503	+1,903	+19.8%
Benefit payments	42,821	57,662	+14,841	+34.7%
Total expenses	10,828	11,240	+412	+3.8%
Admin and operating expenses	4,525	4,480	–45	–1.0%

There are two clean takeaways from this change set. Inward transfers rose sharply in 2023–24, and benefit payments rose even more sharply. Meanwhile, total expenses increased modestly, and the administration and operating sub-line decreased slightly.

How Large Are Expenses Relative to the Asset Pool?

A sector-wide expense figure is easier to interpret when you compare it to sector-wide assets. Using the June 2024 total assets figure from the asset allocation table ($996,970m), the 2023–24 flow lines translate into approximate ratios:

Line Item	2023–24 ($m)	As a Share of June 2024 Total Assets
Total expenses	11,240	~1.13%
Admin and operating expenses	4,480	~0.45%
Benefit payments	57,662	~5.8%

These ratios are simple scale context. They are not a “fee benchmark” for any individual fund, because a fund’s actual cost structure depends on balance, asset mix, transactions, property holdings, outsourcing, and the administration model.

What Should Trustees Take from the Flow Data?

The 2023–24 flow lines describe a sector that is paying out more than it receives, with benefit payments as the dominant outflow, and rollovers as a major inflow channel. That combination rewards funds that treat liquidity as a standing requirement, not a last-minute task.

Who Is Starting SMSFs Right Now?

The annual tables tell you what the SMSF sector looks like in aggregate. The June 2025 quarterly new-entry tables tell you who is entering the system right now.

This section covers funds entering the SMSF population between 1 April and 30 June 2025 (data extracted 13 July 2025). The “state or territory” figures refer to where the fund is administered, not necessarily where members live. Age, gender, and income figures are based on ABR data and, for income, the member’s most recently lodged individual tax return.

It also helps to connect this to the broader population table: the June 2025 quarter reports 11,000 new fund entries, and this section profiles the characteristics of that entering cohort.

Where Are New SMSFs Being Administered?

New funds in the June 2025 quarter are more concentrated in NSW and Queensland than the existing SMSF footprint, and less concentrated in Victoria.

State or Territory	New Funds June 2025 Quarter	Overall Funds 2023–24	Difference in Percentage Points
NSW	37.6%	33.4%	+4.2
VIC	25.5%	30.5%	–5.0
QLD	20.6%	17.4%	+3.2
WA	8.0%	9.2%	–1.2
SA	6.0%	6.7%	–0.7
ACT	1.3%	1.4%	–0.1
TAS	0.6%	1.2%	–0.6
NT	0.4%	0.2%	+0.2

This does not mean SMSF members are moving states. It means the new-establishment activity, measured by administration location, is tilted toward NSW and QLD relative to the existing base.

How Old Are New SMSF Members?

The age profile of new members is materially younger than the age profile of SMSF members overall. The existing member base (as at end of June 2025) is dominated by older age bands, while the new-entry cohort is concentrated in prime working years.

The table below compares key age thresholds.

Age Threshold	New Members June 2025 Quarter	All SMSF Members June 2025	Difference in Percentage Points
Under 45	47.7%	15.5%	+32.2
50 and Over	35.2%	75.0%	–39.8
60 and Over	9.6%	50.8%	–41.2

The biggest single band for new entrants is 35–44, which accounts for 37.1% of new SMSF members in the June 2025 quarter. Put differently, almost four in 10 new SMSF members sit in the decade where income, contributions, and balance consolidation are usually accelerating.

What Is the Gender Split Among New SMSF Members?

New entrants tilt slightly more male than the overall SMSF membership profile.

• New members (June 2025 quarter): 54.3% male, 45.7% female

• All SMSF members (June 2025): 52.7% male, 47.3% female

That is a 1.6 percentage point higher male share in the new-entry cohort. It is not a structural gap, but it is consistent with the income-by-gender pattern shown in the same quarterly tables.

How Much Do New SMSF Members Earn?

New entrants skew to higher taxable income bands than the overall SMSF member population. This is visible as soon as you compare the $100,000 threshold.

Income Threshold	New Members June 2025 Quarter	All SMSF Members June 2025	Difference in Percentage Points
Under $100,000	47.0%	58.1%	–11.1
$100,000 and over	51.5%	40.1%	+11.4
$150,000 and over	26.8%	24.0%	+2.8
$200,000 and over	12.6%	13.8%	–1.2
$500,000 and over	1.9%	3.2%	–1.3
Unknown	1.6%	1.8%	–0.2

The biggest contrast is at the lower end. New entrants reporting $0–$20,000 taxable income are 5.8% of the new cohort, versus 16.9% across all SMSF members. That aligns with the age mix: the overall SMSF member base includes many retirees, while the new-entry cohort is concentrated in working-age bands.

The gender pattern is also quantifiable in the new cohort. For example, in the June 2025 quarter data, women are more represented in the $0–$20,000 band (8.4% female vs 3.6% male), while men are more represented in higher income bands such as $150,000–$200,000 (18.3% male vs 9.3% female).

What Should You Take from the June 2025 New Entry Profile?

The June 2025 quarter new-entry tables show a cohort that is younger and higher income than the SMSF member base overall, and more concentrated in NSW and Queensland by administration location. That combination is consistent with SMSFs being widely used in retirement, while the newest entrants are arriving earlier in their careers, often during the decade where balances are built quickly through income, contributions, and consolidation.

Conclusion

The June 2025 SMSF dataset shows a sector that is growing in fund count, large in asset value, and diverse in how it operates across balance bands. Total SMSF numbers rose to 653,062, membership is estimated at 1.203 million, and the year delivered 38,449 net new SMSFs. The money is concentrated: funds above $1 million represent 45.9% of SMSFs but hold 84.7% of total assets, which is why medians are often a better reference point than averages when discussing “typical” balances.

Asset allocation is concentrated too. In June 2025, SMSFs held about $296 billion in listed shares and $171 billion in cash and term deposits, with unlisted trusts and property also forming large blocks. Smaller funds are far more cash-heavy than larger funds, and crypto exposure is concentrated in smaller balance bands even though it remains a small fraction of total SMSF assets at the system level. Overseas assets remain a small share of the total, even in larger funds.

As for annual cashflow, in 2023–24, SMSFs recorded $46.5 billion in inflows but $80.4 billion in outflows, driven mainly by $57.7 billion in benefit payments. That pattern aligns with the age profile of SMSF members, where around half are 60+. At the same time, the newest entrant cohort looks different: nearly half of new SMSF members in the June 2025 quarter were under 45, and a majority reported taxable income of $100,000+, pointing to earlier adoption by working-age Australians.

Taken together, the data shows SMSFs operating at two speeds: a large, mature member base drawing benefits, and a newer cohort entering earlier, building balances, and setting up structures they expect to run for decades.

About the Data

The figures in this report are based on SMSF reporting to 30 June and are presented as estimates. Minor rounding differences can occur. Some tables are updated quarterly (population, asset allocation, establishment), while others update annually with the June quarter release. A measurement update introduced in the June 2024 quarter increased the reported SMSF population by less than 1% due to improved handling of funds switching regulators.

About James Hayes

James Hayes AFP® is an ASIC-licensed financial planner (Authorised Representative 000336837) based in Caringbah, serving across the Sutherland Shire and Greater Sydney. 

In practice since 2007, James works mainly with wealth-builders (35–50) and pre-retirees (55–65) who want clear advice on superannuation & SMSFs, retirement strategies, insurance, investments, property, and pensions. He also advises on inheritance, aged care, first home buying, ethical investing, and wills and estate planning. 

Qualifications include a Diploma of Financial Services (Financial Planning) and specialist SMSF and margin lending training. Advice is not aligned with banks, and every plan is built around each client’s goals and tax position. Your first 15-minute call with him is obligation-free.