The Super Members Council is urging Australians to be wary of suggestions they would be better off moving their super from low-cost, high-return mainstream super funds into more complex and costly products such as super ‘platform’ funds and SMSFs which require expensive ongoing financial advice fees to set up and run. 

The consumer alert follows a major ASIC report which found shocking gaps in trustee oversights of large advice fee deductions at several super ‘platforms’. It came just days after the Financial Services Council (FSC) published a report portraying ‘platform’ super products as potentially suitable for almost anyone, which is simply not the case. 

Rather than switching to more complex and costly products where higher fees can erode their super, most consumers would be best served by taking simple and practical initial steps to grow their retirement savings using tools, support and guidance available at no cost or low cost from their own trusted mainstream super fund. 

The facts around advice, switching, and platforms are vitally important as the Government and Parliament consider major reforms to stop the type of harmful switching conduct in which almost 12,000 Australians lost their life savings in the collapsed Shield and First Guardian schemes listed on four major super ‘platforms’. 

ASIC’s Report 833 (June 2026) shows that between 2015 and 2025, super platform funds under management more than tripled from $123 billion to $396 billion, as the total amounts of advice fees deducted from platform accounts grew more than four-fold to $2.3 billion. 

Concurrently, APRA data reveals a sharp $1.1 billion increase in advice fee deductions from Australians’ super accounts in the last two years alone, with $815 million of it concentrated in just five super platforms.  

ASIC’s report raised concerns about “stark and persistent failures” by some super platform trustees to properly protect Australians super from excessive advice fee deductions.[1] It found one platform trustee had proposed an advice fee cap as high as $30,000. 

Earlier this year, SMC released new data on switching showing a recent sudden spike of younger people with smaller amounts of super now being switched to platforms and SMSFs – seven in ten of them had less than $100,000 in their super. 

Against this backdrop, the recent FSC-issued report made selective claims about performance and costs comparing ‘platform’ super funds with safe, high-return, low-cost, performance-tested mainstream MySuper funds. 

SMC disputes the FSC report’s claims in at least four ways: 

1. Members of platform super products typically pay higher administrative fees 
   Analysis of the official data reported to APRA reveals super ‘platform’ products cost consumers nearly twice the MySuper admin fee benchmark at $50k, $100k and $250k balance levels. For someone with $50,000 in super, the median representative administration fees and expenses on a platform product is 0.47% – nearly double the comparable rate of 0.25% for MySuper and 0.24% for non-platform trustee-directed products. 
2. Members of platform super products typically have lower – not higher – exposure to growth assets 
   On a member weighted basis, which reflects where members’ super is invested, the official data reported to APRA reveals MySuper default super options typically average 77% in growth assets, compared to a lower average of 73% for trustee-directed choice products and 70% for platform choice products reported to APRA. 
3. Members of platform super products have lower risk-adjusted returns – and most are not performance tested 
   The official performance data reported to APRA reveals platform trustee-directed products are, on a member weighted basis, around 0.9% points a year behind MySuper products in a like-for-like, asset-allocation-adjusted and fee-inclusive comparison. Most platform investment options are also not subject to the performance test on super (a key consumer protection as to whether your super is performing or not). 
4. The asserted financial benefits of platforms exclude the cost of advice 
   The FSC report’s analysis of platform costs excluded advice fees – yet having an ongoing adviser is an inherent requirement for most consumers invested on super platforms. Those fees – as ASIC’s report found – can be high. 

SMC strongly supports members having access to affordable, quality financial advice which helps them make informed decisions that are in their best interests – and continues to advocate for long-promised Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms to enable more to Australians have that access. 

Fully informed consumer choice has a crucial role to play in helping Australians make good financial decisions, and the evidence shows most Australians continue to be better off financially in APRA-regulated, high-performing and low-cost mainstream profit-to-member super funds – the backbone of Australia’s world-class super system. 

Up to 80% of the members who were advised to switch into Shield and First Guardian appear to have been unaware that’s where their super savings were moved. That’s not healthy, informed choice.  

ASIC’s Report 833 underscores the urgent need for stronger and more consistent consumer protections across the super system. 

The Council calls for urgent reforms to strengthen consumer protections including: 

• stronger trustee-set advice fee caps and universally robust oversights on advice fee deductions from super systemwide to better protect consumers 
• stronger transparency and reporting of fees across all products. 
• faster implementation of Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms. 
• stronger trustee-set advice fee caps and universally robust oversights on advice fee deductions from super systemwide to better protect consumers. 

[1] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2026-releases/26-135mr-asic-calls-platform-trustees-to-account-over-persistent-failures-to-safeguard-super-savings/