Regular review is a legal expectation

Superannuation regulations require trustees to review the fund's Investment strategy regularly. The word regularly is not defined with a fixed timetable, but the expectation is that trustees revisit the strategy often enough to keep it current and relevant to the fund's circumstances.

An auditor checks that the strategy exists, is appropriate and has been reviewed, so a fund that cannot show any review over several years may attract questions.

At least once a year

As a practical minimum, many trustees review the strategy at least once a year, often alongside the annual accounts and audit. Reviewing annually creates a documented trail — recording that the trustees considered the strategy and decided it remained appropriate is evidence that the obligation was met, even if nothing changes.

Events that should trigger a review

Beyond the annual check, certain events Warrant a review whenever they occur. A member joining or leaving, a member approaching or entering retirement, or the fund starting to pay a pension all change the fund's needs. So can a large contribution, a significant withdrawal, or a decision to buy a major asset such as property.

Market movements matter too. A sharp rise or fall can push the portfolio outside the ranges set in the strategy, and a major change in a member's personal circumstances can alter their objectives. Changes in the law, such as adjustments to contribution caps or pension rules, can also be a relevant trigger.

What a review involves

A review is a genuine reconsideration. It checks that the strategy's objectives still reflect the members' goals, that the actual investments sit within the stated ranges, and that the treatment of risk, diversification, Liquidity and insurance still makes sense.

Where the fund has drifted from the strategy, the trustees decide whether to rebalance the investments or update the strategy to reflect a considered change. The decision is recorded, with reasons, so the review is visible and defensible.

Recording the review

Consider a hypothetical example. The Chen family SMSF reviews its strategy each year in September. One year a member turns 60 and plans to start a pension within two years, so the trustees increase the target allocation to income-producing and Liquid assets and document why. The next year nothing material has changed, and they record that the strategy remains appropriate.

Both outcomes are proper reviews. The trustees actively considered the strategy and left a record of having done so, whether or not the strategy itself changed.