<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - SMSFs double use of retail investment managers</title>
	<description>The number of self-managed super funds (SMSF) using retail investment managers has doubled in the last four years, according Plan for Life research.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=36529018</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:45:35 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:45:35 +1100</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Confused Reader (SMSF Trustee)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>Lies, damn lies and statistics. I am utterly confused.</p>
<p>The article states that the number of SMSFs utilising retail fund managers has doubled yet further down the article indicates that the funds unders adminstration have increased in the 4 years from $21 billion to $42 billion. So I doubt the number of funds has increased by a factor of two.</p>
<p>Now if I assume we are talking about FUA then in 2009 $21bn represented 6.5% of total assets, so if the $42bn represent 8.5% then the market share has not doubled. It has however still grown by about a third of its previous base.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Confused Reader (SMSF Trustee)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:45:35 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>