
There’s been a lot of uproar about the government’s proposal to tax unrealised capital gains on super balances above $3 million. The concern is that this sets a dangerous precedent – what’s to stop them taxing unrealised capital gains in other environments.
But here’s the irony: most superannuation members already pay tax on unrealised gains every day. That’s simply how pooled super funds operate. The only way to avoid it is to switch to a wrap platform or an SMSF. But is that worth doing?
How do pooled super products work
Most super funds operate as pooled investment products. This means your money is combined with other members’, and you own units in the fund, not the underlying investments, similar to how an ETF works.
Each day, the fund recalculates its unit price based on the value of the underlying assets. Importantly, this calculation includes a provision for tax on any unrealised capital gains. The reason is to ensure fairness: if someone exits the fund, they have effectively contributed their share toward the future tax liability, so those who remain are not left carrying more than their share of the liability.
In short, even if none of your investments have been sold, a portion of your balance is reduced each day to account for unrealised capital gains tax.
How to avoid paying any CGT over your working life
If you want to avoid paying tax on unrealised capital gains in super, you need to directly own the underlying investments. You can do this via a wrap platform (I prepared a detailed review of these here) or by establishing a self-managed super fund (SMSF).
Here’s why that matters: once your super is converted into a pension account, and if your balance is under the Transfer Balance Cap (currently $2 million), any unrealised capital gains essentially vanish. That means you never pay tax on the capital growth your investments accumulated throughout your whole working life.
However, if you are using a wrap product and decide to switch to a different provider, that will typically trigger capital gains tax. This is because the legal holder of the assets, the trustee, changes. To avoid CGT, you must stick with the same wrap provider for your entire working life. While it’s possible to open a second wrap account with a different provider, running two accounts is often not cost-effective.
An SMSF gives you more flexibility. You can change investment platforms or switch to no-cost brokerage options like Betashares Direct without triggering CGT, because the trustee remains the same.
But keep in mind: wrap platforms provide valuable performance tracking and reporting tools. Without that visibility, it’s hard to benchmark returns and to give you confidence that you are better off under those arrangements. So, returns reporting is critical.
Factors that influence how much tax you could potentially save
In terms of ascertaining how much avoiding tax on unrealised gains could save you there are several considerations
Timing of super contributions
Investment returns compound over time, which means the sooner your super balance grows through contributions, the greater the potential capital gains tax saving.
For many of our clients, it takes until their early to mid-40s to reach around $250,000 in super. By their early 50s, that typically doubles to $500,000, and then doubles again to $1 million by age 60. In other words, most of the dollar value of compounding happens in the last 10 to 15 years before retirement.
So, if your super balance is already relatively high for your age, you stand to benefit more from the CGT saving. On the other hand, if your balance is lower and even if you are planning to top it up heavily in the final decade of your retirement, your unrealised capital gains, and therefore potential tax saving, will likely be below average.
Time until retirement
The number of years until retirement have can make a big difference on the CGT savings. Of course, if you are only 5 years away from retirement, the CGT savings as likely to be minimal.
Portfolio turnover
How your super is invested also affects how much tax you may pay. For instance, many actively managed funds have high portfolio turnover, exceeding 100% per year. That means most of the returns are realised and taxable each year, so avoiding unrealised gains becomes largely irrelevant.
In contrast, index funds tend to have very low turnover, often less than 1%, which means they buy and sell very little each year. This keeps realised capital gains tax to a minimum. For example, over the 5 years to May 2025, the Vanguard International Shares Index Fund delivered a total return of 15% p.a., made up of 5.4% p.a. in income and 9.6% p.a. in unrealised capital growth.
Change in circumstance
Changes in your financial circumstances can often require changes to your super structure or investments. You might need to switch super funds at some point during your career, such as to access employer provided benefits You could go through a divorce and split your super with an ex-partner. Or you might stop contributing altogether while working overseas.
If there’s one thing you can count on in life, it’s change, often unexpected. And your super strategy needs to be flexible enough to adapt.
Quantifying potential savings
I reviewed a random sample of 30 client accounts, each established between 4 and 15 years ago (average life was 8 years). This selection was diverse, covering various client circumstances, balances, and contribution histories.
Based on wrap investment performance reports, the average return was composed of 60% unrealised growth and 40% income and/or realised gains. The highest percentage of unrealised gains observed was 70%, while the lowest was 40%.
If a pooled super fund has a pre-tax return of 7%, tax will reduce this return. Assuming 60% of the return comes from unrealised capital gains and 40% from income, the tax impact will reduce the return by 0.84%, resulting in an after-tax return of 6.16%. In contrast, a non-pooled product would only be taxed on the income portion, so the after-tax return would be 6.58%, which is 0.42% higher.
Fee comparison
The table below compares the total costs for pooled super products such as Vanguard Super High Growth and AustralianSuper High Growth versus un-pooled products such as a wrap product, SMSF, and AustralianSuper Member Direct.
The AustralianSuper Member Direct option is essentially a basic wrap product. It enables members to invest in a limited range of ETFs while enjoying the tax advantages typical of wrap accounts. However, its ETF menu is somewhat restricted and lacks several indexing strategies we commonly utilise, such as Dimensional and fundamental indexing, amongst others. The most effective approach with this option is to allocate your entire balance to a single ETF: the Vanguard Diversified High Growth Index ETF (VDHG), which is identical to the High Growth option at Vanguard Super. Therefore, it’s the same as Vanguard Super but allows you to avoid CGT at a slightly lower cost.
Most wrap providers offer family discounts. Therefore, to compare fees using the table above, combine your and your spouse’s balances.

The numbers: Higher fees versus potential tax saving
Is it worth paying higher fees for a wrap platform get access to a boarder investment menu and avoid tax on unrealised gains? To test this, I modelled four scenarios, assuming the same pre-tax, pre-fee investment return of 7% per annum in each case. This analysis isolates the impact of tax and fees only.
20-year-old starting their carer
The first was a 20-year-old just starting their career with $15,000 in super, contributing consistently until age 60. I project super balances at age 60 in today’s dollars to be:
- AustralianSuper Member Direct: $1,109,000 (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.43% p.a.).
- Wrap: $1,068,000, $41,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.21% p.a.).
- Vanguard Super: $1,020,000, $89,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 4.94% p.a.).
- AustralianSuper High Growth: $989,000, $120,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 4.75% p.a.).
35-year-old with a healthy super balance
The second scenario was a 35-year-old with a $250,000 balance who maximises concessional contributions to age 60.
- AustralianSuper Member Direct: $1,736,000 (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.80% p.a.).
- Wrap: $1,692,000, $44,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.65% p.a.).
- Vanguard Super: $1,603,000, $133,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.32% p.a.).
- AustralianSuper High Growth: $,1,551,000, $185,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.12% p.a.).
50-year-old, 10 years away from retirement
Finally, the third scenario was a 50-year-old with a $500,000 balance also maximising contributions through to age 60.
- AustralianSuper High Growth: $1,028,000, $59,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 6.12% p.a.).
- AustralianSuper Member Direct: $1,087,000 (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.93% p.a.).
- Wrap: $1,071,000, $16,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.61% p.a.).
- Vanguard Super: $1,044,000, $43,000 less (the implied after fees and tax average return is 5.41% p.a.).
The percentage average returns are lower for scenario one because the tax liability on contributions and income are a greater proportion of the members balance compared to the other two scenarios.
The difference between a wrap and AustralianSuper’s Member Direct ranges between 0.15% and 0.22% p.a. If used correctly, the broader investment menu that a wrap provides could help you structure a portfolio that achieves a higher long-term return, more than offsetting these slightly higher wrap fees.
A broad investment menu is important
As I explain in more detail in this blog, there are several other benefits to using a wrap platform. One key advantage is the broader investment menu, which allows you to implement more sophisticated, rules-based, low-cost, and transparent indexing strategies. This gives you the flexibility to better manage risks and take advantage of opportunities, which, in theory, should lead to better returns.
For instance, earlier this year I suggested reducing exposure to the big banks and miners in Australia and using EX20 as one example of how to do that. Over the 2025 financial year, EX20 returned 16.05% compared to the broader market index at 13.70%. EX20 does not appear on AustralianSuper Member Direct investment menu.
Vanguard Super and VDHG only use one indexing strategy; traditional market cap indexing.
That said, managing a superannuation portfolio using a wrap product requires either the confidence, knowledge, and experience to do it yourself, or the guidance of a financial advisor.
The conclusion is…
If you are already working with a financial advisor on other matters, then paying the higher fees for a wrap platform is justifiable if you expect the gross future returns (i.e., before fees and tax) will be the same or better as pooled funds.
If you’re not working with a financial advisor, a low-cost, un-pooled option like AustralianSuper Member Direct** (as outlined above) might be a better fit. Please note, this blog focuses solely on fees and tax outcomes. It doesn’t address investment returns, which are an important consideration, of course. Next week, I’ll be comparing investment performance in my 2025 super review, so make sure to read that blog alongside this one for a complete picture.
** A reader has kindly highlighted up some important points regarding AustralianSuper’s Member Direct:
(1) When transitioning from accumulation to pension phases, you must move your entire Member Direct balance. If your balance exceeds the Transfer Balance Cap, you’ll need to sell some holdings, potentially triggering Capital Gains Tax (CGT).
(2) You cannot allocate your entire balance to Member Direct; at least 20% must be invested in a pre-mixed option like High Growth.
(3) Member Direct accounts do not support Transition to Retirement (TTR) functionality.
Thanks for this detailed article, I am interested in knowing that in Australian supers Member Direct account, would a change of invested ETF few years down the line (either because I want to change or if Members Direct is not offering the particular ETF anymore) be considered as a CGT event?
Yes, it would. Sometimes an ETF closes because they don’t attract enough money – that frustratingly triggers CGT.
Therefore, to maximise CGT savings, it is best to pick an ETF that is robust enough to accomodate changing market conditions, which is why I suggested VDGR.
Right, Thanks.
And as I understand if I buy a robust ETF in Members Direct and am able to stick to it till retirement, then I can avoid this 10-15% of CGT.
Yes, correct. 👍
Hi,
Would it be possible to add a comparison when you have higher(and maybe lower) returns as the historical average has been closer to 10%.
Hi Joe, its not really going to change the theme of the results i.e., relatively performance. For example, if I adjust the gross pre-tax and fees return to 10% p.a. for the young person scenario, the results are: AustralianSuper Members Direct = 8.40% p.a. Wrap = 8.18% p.a., Vanguard Super = 7.73% p.a. and AustralianSuper pre-mixed is 7.54% p.a.
Great read as always. I just had a thought, based on your comment about how a change in trustee triggers a CGT event. Does this apply if one moves their super from an industry fund to an SMSF? I hadn’t thought of this: I haven’t seen anything about this when reading but just wanted to be sure.
In a industry fund you have already paid CGT (amount they show you as balance has already deducted CGT) hence no more deductions are needed to be done when you move to another industry fund or SMSF
Yes, I make that point in next week’s blog too.
Yes, a move from an industry fund into a SMSF would be a CGT event. However, since industry funds are pooled products, the CGT is already subtracted, so there’s no adverse tax consequences (because you’ve already paid the tax anyway).
Hi Stuart, today I was on phone for hours back n forth with Member Direct, someone there talked to someone n so on. Finally they told me that if an ETF stops being offered by Member Direct in future, the balance would have to be moved into different fund but it won’t trigger a CGT. They were unable to provide me a written document to support this though. My gut feeling is that they gave me incorrect information. It’s difficult to know if a fund they no longer have can be transferred seamlessly into their choice income (pension) account either. Since they charge brokerage every time it’s reasonable to believe that at some point they might stop even VDGR or VDHG. Also if you remove the 10%CGT then VDHG becomes less profitable than the pooled Vanguard Super account.
Hi Monti, I very confident that information they gave you is incorrect, which is a worry. A wind up of an ETF is certainly a CGT event. You are correct that the Member Direct option has trustee and survivorship risk e.g., the trustee decides to stop offering the ETF or it winds up. Next week’s blog will add to this information as I review returns and make recommendations on how to address these risks e.g., when to use Member Direct versus pre-mixed pooled fund versus wrap. Look out for that one.
Thanks Stuart, eagerly waiting for your next blog.
I hope you enjoy it!
Does the AustralianSuper Member Direct calculations include transaction fees when purchasing/selling the ETF?
No, I have not included any brokerage costs. These don’t tend to vary much between all the options, so it won’t change the conclusions reached.
Hi Stuart, A few points that I would appreciate you elaboration on :
1. This is a copy/paste from the AusSuper Member Direct Guide (see link to the PDF from this page https://www.australiansuper.com/investments/your-investment-options/member-direct):
“Member Direct will also calculate any CGT on your unrealised net capital gains or losses daily to include the resulting tax asset or liability within your portfolio valuation. This calculation will include any unutilised realised capital losses.”
Does this mean we do get charged CGT after all?
2. I recall that Australian ETFs also internally make an allowance for CGT? So if you buy an ETF within a Wrap/MD does CGT for unrealised gains still apply from within the ETF?
3. Presumably dividend income is treated the same in Member Direct, a Wrap and a pooled fund? i.e. taxed in all cases?
Thanks
Thanks for your questions – here are my responses:
1. You’ll have to check with AustralianSuper directly, but it is my understanding that they report tax on unrealised gains on your statement just for informational purposes. However, if the tax liability isn’t triggered at the member level, it’s never paid.
2. No, Capital gains to rarely triggered within an ETF because many ETFs use an “in-kind” creation and redemption process with authorised participants.
3. Yes.
Thank you for the article
To investigate this further, I compared the Hostplus Australian Shares Index option to the Vanguard VAS ETF over the exact same period, and the final outcome/value seems to be very similar.
Hostplus Australian Shares Index (data available from Hostplus)
18/03/2022 unit price 1.0147
31/07/2025 unit price 1.3798
Initial investment of 100,000 on 18/3/2022 would be 135,950 on 31/7/2025
Vanguard VAS ETF
Initial investment of 100,000 on 18/3/2022 closing price
Reinvested all dividend + franking credit (- 15% tax, and trading fee $13) on the day of distribution – I used sharesight to do this and it should be accurate
Final balance: 135,929 on 31/7/2025
There was about $18K unrealised capital gains in the VAS ETF.
ie. There seems to be no apparent capital tax provisioned within the pooled fund, assuming the investment returns are similar between them. Am i missing something here?
Hostplus’ Australian Shares Index option tracks the ASX200 index, whereas VAS tracks the ASX300 index. Over the past 3 years until the end of July (not exactly the time period you are comparing), ASX200 has returned 12.26% consisting of 4.2% p.a. income + 8.05% p.a. growth. The ASX300 has returned 12.03% p.a., consisting of 4.18% p.a. income + 7.85% p.a. growth. Therefore, Hostplus’ return should be 0.80% p.a. lower just because that’s exactly how the structure works (10% tax on gains). As such, I can only conclude that Sharesight’s numbers are wrong.
The uncertainty is whether all funds/investment options provision exactly 10% unrealised CGT that is reflected on the unit price daily. Could the fund choose to provision a % depending on other factors, eg funds net in/outflow, and remain as fair as possible for all members coming in at a different times? ie. it’s not a linear 10% CGT provision throughout the life of the fund. Some pooled super funds have a return of provisioned CGT feature, which suggests that they might have a different approach to handle the unrealised CGT. The issue is there is no transparency and the super funds would not provide that level of info.
Great article, and thank you for replying.
This is a timely and very clear explanation of an issue that often gets overlooked until much later in someone’s financial journey. The examples of how different ages and balances change the outcome are especially helpful.
Thank you, I’m pleased you found my explanation clear and useful.